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.

(WCAX Vermont)   Opponents of wind towers, then: "You'll never generate enough electricity." Power companies, now: "Choke them back We can't handle all this electricity"   (wcax.com) divider line 112
    More: Interesting, wind towers, power companies, Vermont State Police, Department of Public Services, Greater Manchester Police  
•       •       •

9567 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Mar 2013 at 9:57 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



112 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-27 09:59:48 AM
Upgrade transmission lines and sell off excess?

or  Pumped water storage
 
2013-03-27 09:59:58 AM
Maybe the most complete misrepresentation of an article in a headline ever.

Is there a HOTY category for that?
 
2013-03-27 10:00:04 AM
qph.is.quoracdn.net

/hurrrrrrrrrr durrrrrrrrrr
 
2013-03-27 10:01:07 AM
People really seem to hate generating power without fossil fuels.  I don't get it.
 
2013-03-27 10:03:49 AM
Headline is completely unrelated to the article.
 
2013-03-27 10:03:49 AM
Did you not read even the first paragraph of the FA, Subby? They are curtailing these wind towers because they have more than enough power on the grid from other sources.

Not too worry, we'll really get serious on alternative energy when we run out of natural gas in a few years. It might take some time, but if we run short the Professor can rig up a peddle-able generator for Gilligan to pump to keep a tablet up and running.
 
2013-03-27 10:06:46 AM

The Muthaship: Maybe the most complete misrepresentation of an article in a headline ever.

Is there a HOTY category for that?


This. FTFA: "pulled the plug on power production because there was just too much available from other sources. Newer, non-baseload sources like Lowell got yanked first."

/people have a hard time understanding that wind turbines are exclusively supplemental power and can't be counted on for your base load.
 
2013-03-27 10:06:46 AM
This is why we can't have nice things Subby
 
2013-03-27 10:07:00 AM

fireclown: People really seem to hate generating power without fossil fuels.  I don't get it.


Most people who hate it have either jobs or fortunes tied into the fossil fuel industry or are related to people who have jobs and fortunes tied into the fossil fuel industry. So, if we turned to alternative fuels like wind, they will be out of a job.

It's the same way why no one wants to cut the defense budget. That money pays for thousands and thousands of jobs throughout the country. We may not make our own clothes in this country anymore but we still make tons guns and fighter jets.
 
2013-03-27 10:07:52 AM
We've been having some pretty high wind days out here in Rio Vista the past few weeks to the point that our turbines have been curtailed down to around 1.5MW per turbine rather than running at the 2.1MW each one can produce at max power. I'm sure the same is happening to the GE and Siemens turbines out here as well even though they have an overall lower output than ours.
 
2013-03-27 10:08:11 AM

fireclown: People really seem to hate generating power without fossil fuels.  I don't get it.


It's almost like there are massive, global megacorporations making a lot of money off the status quo, and give zero farks about long-term consequences.
 
2013-03-27 10:08:17 AM
The issue isn't that wind can't generate power or enough power, the issue is that wind isn't a base load power supply.
 
2013-03-27 10:09:18 AM
Those towers kill endanged birds of prey, we whould bulldoze every last one of them for the perogrine falcons.
 
2013-03-27 10:09:33 AM

JackieRabbit: Did you not read even the first paragraph of the FA, Subby? They are curtailing these wind towers because they have more than enough power on the grid from other sources.

Not too worry, we'll really get serious on alternative energy when we run out of natural gas in a few years. It might take some time, but if we run short the Professor can rig up a peddle-able generator for Gilligan to pump to keep a tablet up and running.


If by a "few years" you mean >75, then you are about right.
 
2013-03-27 10:09:34 AM
The electrical load throughout the day is fairly predictable. Wind supply is not. That means that for every Megawatt being generated by wind, a fossil fuel plant has to be in 'spinning reserve' (ie, running at idle load, inefficiently) ready to pick up, should the wind die down.

There's only so much of the grid you can play this game with. If I remember correctly, if wind exceeds 5% of the production at any given time, it will add intolerable instability to the grid.

Now pumped storage could be used to even out the supply from wind power, and there are many existing pumped storage facilities throughout the country- but they typically pre-date the wind power craze.

Just go ahead and try to build a new pumped storage facilities these days, though. You'll find one set of tree-hugging hippies fighting another faction.
 
2013-03-27 10:10:17 AM

JackieRabbit: the Professor can rig up a peddle-able generator for Gilligan to pump to keep a tablet up and running.


Yes, but how would you get coconuts to New England? It  is a temperate zone. Are you suggesting that coconuts migrate?
 
2013-03-27 10:15:02 AM

mekki: fireclown: People really seem to hate generating power without fossil fuels.  I don't get it.

Most people who hate it have either jobs or fortunes tied into the fossil fuel industry or are related to people who have jobs and fortunes tied into the fossil fuel industry. So, if we turned to alternative fuels like wind, they will be out of a job.

It's the same way why no one wants to cut the defense budget. That money pays for thousands and thousands of jobs throughout the country. We may not make our own clothes in this country anymore but we still make tons guns and fighter jets.



It isn't JUST that.  Those people have a real issue that is at least rational.  I was thinking about customers:  people with no real understanding of where their electricity comes from.  I'm a solar panel ownin', prius drivin', Woodsey Owl era tree hugger, so I find myself talking a lot about renewables.  People have a weirdly hostile reaction to wind and solar.
 
2013-03-27 10:17:31 AM

dfenstrate: Just go ahead and try to build a new pumped storage facilities these days, though. You'll find one set of tree-hugging hippies fighting another faction.


Also watch that happen if you even THINK about damming a river for hydro power.  The river lovin' tree huggers will go to war with the energy policy tree huggers.  Nuclear power plants are another good one, as the no nukes types will fight it out with the anti fossil fuel types.  We can be our own worst enemies at times.
 
2013-03-27 10:19:00 AM

fireclown: People really seem to hate generating power without fossil fuels.  I don't get it.


SOLAR POWER KILLS CHILDREN!!

/and puppies
 
2013-03-27 10:19:17 AM
It's not simply "too much power." It's too much, then not enough, then too much" - all at odd times.

The wind proponents keep showing us those neato graphs - "look how much power wind generated in this one area" - but can never seem to notice that the wind power output has a complete disconnect from the demand from the systems. You see nearly zero output, then an increase to near-maximum, then a sudden dropoff to near zero.

In power grid terms, that's suicidal. You can't run industrial plants from a system like that, and business/residential demand is predictable enough that it won't work there either.
 
2013-03-27 10:19:31 AM
Wind energy is a great concept that can alleviate the strain on over-taxed city grids in some areas. Sadly, most cities don't want them and deem them an eyesore. Wind opponents by and large have few good points to address, especially when they bring up "various health effects." The one good point they regularly neglect that supports their cause is how turbine projects are always developed on existing power lines for convenience. The issue here is that obviously those lines already existed because there is a power resource supplying them. Ontario has a great example, dozens of these turbines were added onto the supply lines from Canada's largest nuclear facility near Tiverton. Wind harvesting is a great concept and has excellent situations to be used effectively but the execution of these projects tends to be poorly positioned.
 
2013-03-27 10:21:24 AM
I'll take Tidal Power for $500 Alex.
 
2013-03-27 10:26:27 AM

dfenstrate: The electrical load throughout the day is fairly predictable. Wind supply is not. That means that for every Megawatt being generated by wind, a fossil fuel plant has to be in 'spinning reserve' (ie, running at idle load, inefficiently) ready to pick up, should the wind die down.

There's only so much of the grid you can play this game with. If I remember correctly, if wind exceeds 5% of the production at any given time, it will add intolerable instability to the grid.

Now pumped storage could be used to even out the supply from wind power, and there are many existing pumped storage facilities throughout the country- but they typically pre-date the wind power craze.

Just go ahead and try to build a new pumped storage facilities these days, though. You'll find one set of tree-hugging hippies fighting another faction.


Another thing to remember is that fossil fuel power plants generate more pollution the less efficiently they run, which means that if  you try to cycle coal or oil based plants as wind/solar/tidal/etc... cycle you're actually increasing the amount of crap being pumped into the atmosphere.

/don't have source offhand, saw an interesting presentation on this at a FESC conference at UF
 
2013-03-27 10:28:48 AM

fireclown: People have a weirdly hostile reaction to wind and solar.


The problem is that there are a lot of people (even some who should know better) who insist that we should close down coal-fired plants and switch to almost entirely wind and solar power. And it just plain doesn't work that way, partly because the technology isn't there and party because of the nature of wind and solar power. The problem is that then people who don't know any better oppose new coal fired plants which are cleaner and more efficient than older plants and which in many cases are needed. People are hostile to wind and solar not because they're bad but because they're treated(in many circles) as if they're some kind of magic fix to our energy needs and it's making it hard for the people responsible for keeping your lights on to do their job.
 
2013-03-27 10:29:03 AM

cirby: It's not simply "too much power." It's too much, then not enough, then too much" - all at odd times.

The wind proponents keep showing us those neato graphs - "look how much power wind generated in this one area" - but can never seem to notice that the wind power output has a complete disconnect from the demand from the systems. You see nearly zero output, then an increase to near-maximum, then a sudden dropoff to near zero.

In power grid terms, that's suicidal. You can't run industrial plants from a system like that, and business/residential demand is predictable enough that it won't work there either.


If only there were devices, items you know, that could take this power and store it for later use. Like a pitcher with water you know, we could store the power in this device and then use it on demand when needed.

But that's just crazy talk
 
2013-03-27 10:30:39 AM

Spaghetti Eatin' Goombah: JackieRabbit: Did you not read even the first paragraph of the FA, Subby? They are curtailing these wind towers because they have more than enough power on the grid from other sources.

Not too worry, we'll really get serious on alternative energy when we run out of natural gas in a few years. It might take some time, but if we run short the Professor can rig up a peddle-able generator for Gilligan to pump to keep a tablet up and running.

If by a "few years" you mean >75, then you are about right.


75 if we and only we use the gas. But we're selling huge amounts to Asia, where fuel consumption is growing exponentially. So I'm not buying the gas industry's propaganda just yet. And their windfall may come to a screeching halt when the dangers of fracking are fully known.
 
2013-03-27 10:32:19 AM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: cirby: It's not simply "too much power." It's too much, then not enough, then too much" - all at odd times.

The wind proponents keep showing us those neato graphs - "look how much power wind generated in this one area" - but can never seem to notice that the wind power output has a complete disconnect from the demand from the systems. You see nearly zero output, then an increase to near-maximum, then a sudden dropoff to near zero.

In power grid terms, that's suicidal. You can't run industrial plants from a system like that, and business/residential demand is predictable enough that it won't work there either.

If only there were devices, items you know, that could take this power and store it for later use. Like a pitcher with water you know, we could store the power in this device and then use it on demand when needed.

But that's just crazy talk


I think I've heard of that newfangled invention.    I think it may start with a "b" and end with a "y."
 
2013-03-27 10:44:22 AM

Ethertap: Another thing to remember is that fossil fuel power plants generate more pollution the less efficiently they run, which means that if you try to cycle coal or oil based plants as wind/solar/tidal/etc... cycle you're actually increasing the amount of crap being pumped into the atmosphere.


I suspect you misheard this bit-- the plants are certainly more polluting per kWh produced when they're idling, but they're also producing dramatically less.  I would be genuinely surprised to find out that idling plants supplemented by intermittent renewable tech like solar or wind was not actually lower in total net emissions per kWh produced, despite the low efficiency of the idling plants.
 
2013-03-27 10:45:09 AM

47 is the new 42: I think I've heard of that newfangled invention.


Exactly how big a battery are we imagining here?

Ignoring the cost/maintenance implications, I imagine  suggesting something this mind-bubblingly hilarious is all part and parcel of the green warriors ethos?
 
2013-03-27 10:45:20 AM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: If only there were devices, items you know, that could take this power and store it for later use. Like a pitcher with water you know, we could store the power in this device and then use it on demand when needed.

But that's just crazy talk


Here's an interesting article about capacitors
 
2013-03-27 10:51:23 AM
"We cannot carry any more large wind capacity on those lines," Johnson said. "Everybody knows this.

Sounds like a bid to get more project cash to upgrade the power transmission system.
 
2013-03-27 10:51:51 AM

Muta: MyKingdomForYourHorse: If only there were devices, items you know, that could take this power and store it for later use. Like a pitcher with water you know, we could store the power in this device and then use it on demand when needed.

But that's just crazy talk

Here's an interesting article about capacitors


So put batteries in everyone's house and charge them up and you use what you need when you need it?
that's crazy talk.
 
2013-03-27 10:53:12 AM

nulluspixiusdemonica: Ignoring the cost/maintenance implications, I imagine suggesting something this mind-bubblingly hilarious is all part and parcel of the green warriors ethos?


It's about half crazy.  Off grid renewable energy types ALL have massive battery banks to level things out.  Home Power used to publish diagrams of peoples systems, if you want to have a look.  Were enough homes thusly intertied, there would be a sizable available reservoir to accept municipal overproduction.  At least some of it.

/no, I don't have a picture of my battery bank handy.  I'm at work.
 
2013-03-27 10:53:22 AM
Hy local paper.....

Funny how you cannot build a house anywhere near scenic land, but you can put up useless wind turbines, subsidized with millions of taxpayer dollars, that don't even work because our infrastructure is so old.
 
2013-03-27 10:53:37 AM
MyKingdomForYourHorse:
If only there were devices, items you know, that could take this power and store it for later use. Like a pitcher with water you know, we could store the power in this device and then use it on demand when needed.

But that's just crazy talk


But until research develops the "Battery Treetm," you're going to have to get the batteries from the ground... which means more mining... try to get one of those approved

My friends with the electric cars cringe when I point out their car is coal-nuclear-hydro-gas-solar-wind and strip mine powered.  (not the tinsy-winsy footprint they imagined)

/no, I don't have better idea
//but we should be honest with ourselves
 
2013-03-27 10:55:37 AM

MayContainHorseGluten: fireclown: People really seem to hate generating power without fossil fuels.  I don't get it.

SOLAR POWER KILLS CHILDREN!!

/and puppies


And there are clouds in america too or something.
 
2013-03-27 10:56:11 AM

47 is the new 42: MyKingdomForYourHorse: cirby: It's not simply "too much power." It's too much, then not enough, then too much" - all at odd times.

The wind proponents keep showing us those neato graphs - "look how much power wind generated in this one area" - but can never seem to notice that the wind power output has a complete disconnect from the demand from the systems. You see nearly zero output, then an increase to near-maximum, then a sudden dropoff to near zero.

In power grid terms, that's suicidal. You can't run industrial plants from a system like that, and business/residential demand is predictable enough that it won't work there either.

If only there were devices, items you know, that could take this power and store it for later use. Like a pitcher with water you know, we could store the power in this device and then use it on demand when needed.

But that's just crazy talk

I think I've heard of that newfangled invention.    I think it may start with a "b" and end with a "y."


Unfortunately that battery technology doesn't actually exist at an economically viable cost yet.
 
2013-03-27 10:56:21 AM

fireclown: nulluspixiusdemonica: Ignoring the cost/maintenance implications, I imagine suggesting something this mind-bubblingly hilarious is all part and parcel of the green warriors ethos?

It's about half crazy.  Off grid renewable energy types ALL have massive battery banks to level things out.  Home Power used to publish diagrams of peoples systems, if you want to have a look.  Were enough homes thusly intertied, there would be a sizable available reservoir to accept municipal overproduction.  At least some of it.

/no, I don't have a picture of my battery bank handy.  I'm at work.


Batteries are expensive, very dirty to produce and banks of batteries can be very dangerous (banks of capacitors doubly so). Putting batteries in everyone's house to balance load doesn't seem like an improvement over the current system.
 
2013-03-27 10:57:04 AM
did subby even read the FTA?
 
2013-03-27 11:01:10 AM
these threads drive me crazy. yeah you guys why haven't those dumbass power transmission engineers thought of like, STORING the energy, it's probably not a lot of work right
 
2013-03-27 11:01:57 AM
www.todmorden.com.au
What a homebrew home battery bank might look like.  Not mine, I think this one is somewhere in Australia.  If I'm not mistaken, those are forklift batteries, and the owner would HAPPILY accept some amp hours from a utility.


Commercially available home backup battery.  Home delivery available.
 
2013-03-27 11:03:38 AM
I thought the opponents of wind were concerned that the cost of manufacturing and maintenance over the expected lifetime of the hardware wouldn't come out ahead.  Which I suppose translates to "you'll never generate enough electricity" (before needing repair or maintenance that will eat up the generated energy's profits).  At least that's what I was hearing.  And I don't think that doing a lousy job of integrating this variable source of energy into the grid so that it has to be curtailed is in any way proof that the opponents were wrong.  So....

3/10
 
2013-03-27 11:03:47 AM

Spaghetti Eatin' Goombah: I'll take Tidal Power for $500 Alex.


Like the wind, you just can't count on the tides. Far too capricious and unpredictable to put on the table.

Now, fossil fuels? That's an energy source a fella can count on.
 
2013-03-27 11:04:44 AM

fireclown: Off grid renewable energy types ALL have massive battery banks to level things out.


I'd be far more interested in what type of batteries... given their limited lifespan and their being generally chock full of ingredients far more horrifying than anything you'd find spewing out of a cooling tower...

Burying all this out of sight on the pinky-swear promise that the home-owner will religiously check said batteries is a natural disaster just waiting to seep into the water table and turn everyone into filthy enviro-murderers!
 
2013-03-27 11:06:11 AM

47 is the new 42: MyKingdomForYourHorse: cirby: It's not simply "too much power." It's too much, then not enough, then too much" - all at odd times.

The wind proponents keep showing us those neato graphs - "look how much power wind generated in this one area" - but can never seem to notice that the wind power output has a complete disconnect from the demand from the systems. You see nearly zero output, then an increase to near-maximum, then a sudden dropoff to near zero.

In power grid terms, that's suicidal. You can't run industrial plants from a system like that, and business/residential demand is predictable enough that it won't work there either.

If only there were devices, items you know, that could take this power and store it for later use. Like a pitcher with water you know, we could store the power in this device and then use it on demand when needed.

But that's just crazy talk

I think I've heard of that newfangled invention.    I think it may start with a "b" and end with a "y."


I work in the field of laser micromachining.  And I run into this kind of person more often than I'd like to.  They watched a youtube video of a laser, or maybe even had a specific type of laser in their own lab but don't really have a concept of why this different laser that we have here won't be able to cut into their material with a specific wavelength and a specific energy density with a specific focal length lens.  They just get flabbergasted and think you're lying or something.

All I can advise is that before getting sarcastic and attempting to sound witty and intelligent, you do a little research into the technology you're invoking to make sure you're not making yourself look and/or sound like a total idiot.
 
2013-03-27 11:08:27 AM
While our treatment of old batteries is improving, they are a toxic waste problem.  I can't really imagine having a bank batteries in every house, the poison gas and fire hazard would be (pick your favorite catastrophe conveying word).

/what do you do with your old AAA, AA, C, D, cell phone batteries?
 
2013-03-27 11:11:06 AM

SpuriousEmission: But until research develops the "Battery Treetm," you're going to have to get the batteries from the ground... which means more mining... try to get one of those approved


Its already here we just aren't realizing it to be honest.

We could easily cut our fossil use in dramatic portions by treating power like we already treat data on the internet. Distributed production and distribution. Geothermal in homes, solar panels on all roofs, and small wind power in rural areas along with home battery banks could take a huge chunk out of our yearly fossil fuel usage.

And there is brighter technology on the horizon, but until we start the trend the ball is going to be slow moving.
 
2013-03-27 11:11:21 AM

nulluspixiusdemonica: I'd be far more interested in what type of batteries... given their limited lifespan and their being generally chock full of ingredients far more horrifying than anything you'd find spewing out of a cooling tower...


Lifespan is better than you might think.  I've had my nicads for about ten years with no real issues.  I DO agree with your concerns that most people are too dim or lazy to do regular checks.  Offgrid home power types are almost comically devoted to monitoring our systems.

For the record, for larger scale storage of overages, I favor pumped water storage.  Wiki has a pretty good article on it:
to the wikki!
 
2013-03-27 11:16:47 AM
MyKingdomForYourHorse:
We could easily cut our fossil use in dramatic portions by treating power like we already treat data on the internet. Distributed production and distribution. Geothermal in homes, solar panels on all roofs, and small wind power in rural areas along with home battery banks could take a huge chunk out of our yearly fossil fuel usage.

If your only goal is to reduce fossil fuel use your plan MIGHT(big maybe sort of situation) accomplish that. But if your goal is to cut energy costs and reduce pollution your plan will absolutely not do either of those things.
 
2013-03-27 11:22:53 AM
For those of you unfamiliar with the term of Energy Density, compare gasoline's with anything else

/the GIS can be enlightning
//this is the reason why gasoline is used
 
Displayed 50 of 112 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report