moreta: Snarfangel: According to the story, if the new technology pans out we only have to cover an area a quarter of the size of Alaska to get all of our power from wind. That sounds feasible.


Then you have no idea just how big Alaska is.
[www.birds-eye-view.alaska.edu image 525x336]

We've always said up here to those touristy texans, "Even if you cut Alaska in half, Texas would still be the third largest state!"

doglover: Because even 100 times wind power could compete with fusion, which is known to work we just haven't got it up and running yet.

The problem is when will they be up and running? Fusion power has been '10 years away' for the last 50 years; at this point it is no more realistic an alternative than highly effecient solar power.

NIMBY!

More importantly, were they able to scale up the number of birds killed by 3X as well? 'Cause I'm getting pretty sick of cleaning bird shiat off my windshield, so this sounds win-win, if they can increase the kill ratio accordingly.

moreta: Snarfangel: According to the story, if the new technology pans out we only have to cover an area a quarter of the size of Alaska to get all of our power from wind. That sounds feasible.


Then you have no idea just how big Alaska is.
[www.birds-eye-view.alaska.edu image 525x336]

That was the joke, son.

Snarfangel: My personal belief is there is a better than even chance that natural gas will provide a good portion of near-term power until liquid fluoride thorium reactors come online. Fusion may come online after mid-century -- the joke I heard is "Fusion is the energy of the future, and always will be!" -- but I'm not sure where the economics will be compared to LFTR, since thorium is cheap as dirt.

We ought to at least invest in more research into LFTRs if for no other reason than they can be used to burn the existing "waste" which is really mostly unburned fuel.

For those wondering what to do if it isn't windy, that would be when solar power comes into play.

/usually one or the other
//if not, then run off a battery charged from these sources

Slives: But I also want to think that the low pressure areas behind the blades of wind turbines have already been blamed for bird and bat deaths.

Anything that increases efficiency would likely reduce the turbulence areas behind the blades, so I imagine bird deaths would decrease.


watson.t.hamster: Transmission means lost energy. No way around that.

Fortunately, today's electricity is generated just behind our outlet receptacles, negating the need for any large-scale power transmission. So, you're right: we'd have to build some sort of large-scale "power transmission grid", probably with lots of towers supporting some sort of wire arrangement overhead. Maybe they could follow the highways, for ease of access... (To be fair, you were replying to a comment about "put them offshore", but nonetheless - power transmission losses are a fact of energy usage, regardless of source. One mile of offshore cable isn't a heavy loss overhead.)


And then there's lots of useless criticism about "It isn't always windy!!!". Neither is it ever windless, country-wide. Wind power has more up-time than solar; both technologies are only capable of being either assists to a base power resource, or else must use storage technologies (at an increased loss of efficiency).

rwfan:

Snarfangel: My personal belief is there is a better than even chance that natural gas will provide a good portion of near-term power until liquid fluoride thorium reactors come online. Fusion may come online after mid-century -- the joke I heard is "Fusion is the energy of the future, and always will be!" -- but I'm not sure where the economics will be compared to LFTR, since thorium is cheap as dirt.

We ought to at least invest in more research into LFTRs if for no other reason than they can be used to burn the existing "waste" which is really mostly unburned fuel.

Aside from the fact that there's a lot of reprocessing involved that makes it's own waste, we still don't know what to do with the fluoride salts other than store it at INEL, ORNL and WIPP.

Sorry to be Debby Downer here, but every step in dealing with high-level heavy waste tends to produce a few orders of magnitude more worth of light-element low-level waste, almost all of it fiercely reactive and hard to store.

There's some fluid dynamics number that sets a hard limit on the efficiency of any wind turbine, so this probably won't do what the author of the article is saying.

Hollie Maea: watson.t.hamster: Transmission means lost energy. No way around that.

Sure there is--raise the transmission voltage. Yes, I know, you still lose energy, but it's really very manageable. For example, a huge amount of the power we make up here with The Dalles Dam hops onto a high voltage DC line and heads directly to Los Angeles. That's way the hell farther than most offshore wind resources.

Dams also produce a lot more than a windmill.

Zeno-25: watson.t.hamster: Transmission means lost energy. No way around that.


Actually, the holy grail of grid upgrades is to eventually convert to superconducting transmission lines.

And the holy grail of clean energy is to figure out a feasible way to use fusion. If we do that all the rest of this is a complete waste of time.

Something may be desirable and will solve all our problems, that doesn't mean we should hang our hopes on that.

How many predictions have we had that started with "if we could only figure out a way to . . . " and ended with " . . . that would solve all these problems".

That's why we have endless clean energy, cures for AIDS and all forms of cancer, and plenty of food for everyone.

Broom: Fortunately, today's electricity is generated just behind our outlet receptacles, negating the need for any large-scale power transmission. So, you're right: we'd have to build some sort of large-scale "power transmission grid", probably with lots of towers supporting some sort of wire arrangement overhead. Maybe they could follow the highways, for ease of access... (To be fair, you were replying to a comment about "put them offshore", but nonetheless - power transmission losses are a fact of energy usage, regardless of source. One mile of offshore cable isn't a heavy loss overhead.)

Wait, what? "So to be fair you were responding to a completely different statement but let me instead pretend you were responding to a statement I just made up and argue against that . . .".

You realize you just labeled your own argument a strawman right? You get that?

And then there's lots of useless criticism about "It isn't always windy!!!".

Crazy that people would consider lack of wind a problem when discussing wind energy. Next up all those nuts can make insane claims like "we won't have oil forever" in reference to a fossil fuel run economy. Craziness, why even bring that up?

Neither is it ever windless, country-wide. Wind power has more up-time than solar; both technologies are only capable of being either assists to a base power resource, or else must use storage technologies (at an increased loss of efficiency).

Right, so they are supplements to an existing grid, not a replacement. Which has been my argument all along.

And what energy source will they supplement? Fossil fuels are evil. As is nuclear. Hydro is great but limited. Geo-thermal would be nice if this were iceland. Biofuels have proven to be a net loss of energy. So . . . .

watson.t.hamster:

Hollie Maea: watson.t.hamster: Transmission means lost energy. No way around that.

Sure there is--raise the transmission voltage. Yes, I know, you still lose energy, but it's really very manageable. For example, a huge amount of the power we make up here with The Dalles Dam hops onto a high voltage DC line and heads directly to Los Angeles. That's way the hell farther than most offshore wind resources.

Dams also produce a lot more than a windmill.

And transmission losses are transmission losses no matter whether the generation comes from hydro, wind, coal, or unicorn farts. Unless you're going to make the argument that transmission losses somehow make wind infeasable, then you're just concern trolling.

Are you making that argument? Do tell. Are you envisioning "a" solitary windmill standing there by itself?


And the holy grail of clean energy is to figure out a feasible way to use fusion. If we do that all the rest of this is a complete waste of time.

And in the meantime, we have clean, renewable technologies that can reduce our need to trash our earth and air and a gigantic defense budget. Not all of us are willing to make the theoretical ideal the enemy of the "good enough."

Something may be desirable and will solve all our problems, that doesn't mean we should hang our hopes on that.

Good for you. You're learning. In the meantime we work with what we know works. Wind is one of those technologies.

maxheck: And transmission losses are transmission losses no matter whether the generation comes from hydro, wind, coal, or unicorn farts. Unless you're going to make the argument that transmission losses somehow make wind infeasable, then you're just concern trolling.

A) transmission losses increase as distance increases, I was responding to the "just put them out at sea and we'll have no problems" mentality. There's a reason we don't put other power plants out at sea even though the "land" would be cheaper and it would be safer for us on land, there are drawbacks. And B) losses are a bigger deal when you're starting with less power. If we had a power plant in Kansas that for some reason couldn't be moved but produced 1,000 times more electricity then we could ever use the losses in transmitting it to New York or California would be irrelevant. If we're starting out with just barely enough then losses become far more significant.

Are you making that argument? Do tell. Are you envisioning "a" solitary windmill standing there by itself?

As I've said many many many times the shortfalls of windmills and solar mean that they will never be a replacement to existing power sources. But they can still be an important supplement. Not sure how you turned "windmills have certain inherent limitations" in to "we can only ever build one!".

And in the meantime, we have clean, renewable technologies that can reduce our need to trash our earth and air and a gigantic defense budget. Not all of us are willing to make the theoretical ideal the enemy of the "good enough."

And intelligent people would recognize shortfalls in those technologies and seek to minimize the damages those might cause.

Other people say we must switch over entirely to these technologies and anyone who has an issue with this is some sort of pro-pollution nut-job.

Good for you. You're learning. In the meantime we work with what we know works. Wind is one of those technologies.

I suspect you may be slow.

maxheck: Sorry to be Debby Downer here, but every step in dealing with high-level heavy waste tends to produce a few orders of magnitude more worth of light-element low-level waste, almost all of it fiercely reactive and hard to store.

It sounds to me like you are describing PUREX which is not how LFTR works. There is no need to create MOX fuel from the spent nuclear fuel. However you did remind me about the radioactive waste (new window) from rare earth mining. Instead of treating the thorium in the rare earth tailings as radioactive waste we could be using it to feed LFTRs. I believe a single rare earth mine creates enough thorium per year to power the entire western hemisphere. Of course we still need to do the research before deciding on a course of action. You are not against research are you?

Ok, here's something you need to know about power.

Absolute demand= How much demand will be on the grid at any given moment. If this demand is not fulfilled, people stop paying their electricity bills, etc.
Absolute supply = How much supply will always be available.
Conditional supply = Supplies that are only available at any given time of day.

Wind, Geothermal, Solar, and other such power generators (tidal for example) are conditional supplies. They cannot fulfill demand when the wind isn't blowing, or the sun isn't shining, or when the geysers aren't shooting off, etc. They are, for a lack of a better word, gimmicks. Anyone who thinks they can solve the current energy problems is sorely mistaken or a FARK troll.

Absolute supplies are always available. These tend toward polluting. Hydro power (dams), Fuel and Coal plants, and Nuclear plants can and do run day and night regardless of the weather. Their supply is always available. Which is why such potential energy sources like fusion are being developed: they could conceivably become the supply that fulfills demand and does so without so much pollution. Nuclear can also conceivably do this, but it's byproducts are hazardous and the public is afraid of something they cannot see such as radiation(even though broken dams have killed 200 times as many people as broken nuclear plants).

watson.t.hamster: A) transmission losses increase as distance increases, I was responding to the "just put them out at sea and we'll have no problems" mentality. There's a reason we don't put other power plants out at sea even though the "land" would be cheaper and it would be safer for us on land, there are drawbacks. And B) losses are a bigger deal when you're starting with less power. If we had a power plant in Kansas that for some reason couldn't be moved but produced 1,000 times more electricity then we could ever use the losses in transmitting it to New York or California would be irrelevant. If we're starting out with just barely enough then losses become far more significant.

Sorry, but you are still full of shiat. If you took the power generated by the wind farms in Eastern Oregon/Washington (near The Dalles), the Pacific DC Intertie would not have sufficient capacity to ship that much power to LA (the DC Intertie has a capacity of 3100MW, which is a huge amount of power, but the WA/OR wind farms have a capacity of more than 4000MW).

Hollie Maea:
Sorry, but you are still full of shiat. If you took the power generated by the wind farms in Eastern Oregon/Washington (near The Dalles), the Pacific DC Intertie would not have sufficient capacity to ship that much power to LA (the DC Intertie has a capacity of 3100MW, which is a huge amount of power, but the WA/OR wind farms have a capacity of more than 4000MW).

Fascinating how with all this free power available and absolutely no technical limitations this idea wasn't hit upon and exploited earlier (and even now only tentatively and with massive government subsidies).

Ever wonder about that? Going by the claims it's so perfect and with absolutely no downsides and the technology has been around for over a century and . . . for some reason no one has thought to do this before. If half the claims about wind were accurate fossil fuels would require subsidies to just barely scrape by, being easily out-competed by wind energy.

But keep believing the hype. Wind will solve all our energy needs. Wind never stops, there is precisely no limits to where wind farms can be installed and transmission loss is a lie made up by physicists colluding with big oil.