Study: Offshore wind could generate all U.S. electricity

[mdn2000]

i just think it sounds outrageous to think that making a viable power-generating device could possibly take more energy than it creates over its lifetime. that conundrum was claimed, and that claim was wrong. if the study put forward by the most experienced offshore wind-power users was extremely inaccurate as you've contended -- that it took 2-3 years instead of 2-3 months to break even -- it would still have taken 1/10 of the total life of the product. the study claims it is more like 1/100.

not only do i believe that this is likely fairly accurate information, but i believe without a doubt that what you and KissMy believe is far-fetched-fiction unsupportable by fact. it's so far fetched, i've limited my own analysis to 'not a chance' and 'moot'.

That is fine and you have every reason to believe what you believe, you also did much more than anyone else in this thread, you looked for an answer, that is more credible than I see just about all the other posts.

I have not dismissed your ideas, they do challenge mine, they do require research, I am and have done my homework and it will take a bit to compare, read, think, research.

I have to go now but thanks for showing your ideas have some basis,

others should take note

 

[antagon]

i think this index of energy return and investment has more application to fuel-based energy rather than direct kinetic sources like wind. energy investment goes into supplying fuels for gas, coal, oil, etc, and that cost is part of perpetuating the operation. this is additional to the sort of costs which go into generating the power, where fuel-based energy regains a lot of its overall efficiency because of the greater net gains it offers.

when you declare coal is cheap, remember, wind is free.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Study: The Big Yellow Thing in the Sky heats the Planet.

Scientists Puzzled. Warmers assert CO2 influences vastly understated!

 

[mdn2000]

Modern wind turbines rapidly recover all the energy spent in manufacturing, installing, maintaining, and finally scrapping them. Under normal wind conditions it takes between two and three months for a turbine to recover all of the energy involved.

You may download the 16 page report.

offshore wind turbines will generally yield some 50 per cent more energy than a turbine placed on a nearby onshore site. The reason is the low roughness of the sea surface.
On the other hand, the construction and installation of foundations require 50 per cent more energy than onshore turbines.
It should be remembered, however, that offshore wind turbines have a longer expected lifetime than onshore turbines, in the region of 25 to 30 years.

Energy Payback Period for Wind Turbines

not even close. > 20 years recovered in < 6 months. my emphasis.

Sorry, this report from 1997 is bullshit, how do you convert to Terajoules, come on, if this is all you can come up, a report from the Danish manufacturer, you cannot provide the study, nor any analysis other than here is a link, seriously you must be kidding.

A report based on a study. There is not one mention of the amount of oil, natural gas used, nothing on the energy used for smelting aluminum, or melting silica into fiberglass.

Further if this is so true and easy to explain why is the study that is the basis of this thread state the opposite of this report.

 

[mdn2000]

So if I got your positions straight, you propose to use more fossil fuels to make Wind power. How is using more to make less energy dependence?

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/industry/Glass_Manufacturing_Energy_Guide.pdf

The estimated primary energy consumption of the U.S. glass industry in 2002 was 331 trillion Btu
(TBtu) (see Chapter 4). Most of the energy consumed is in the form of natural gas, which is used
to fuel glass furnaces and process heating equipment. Glass production is also very capital intensive,
due in part to the cost of rebuilding glass furnaces every 8-12 years.

I provided this link simply to show the type of energy required to make fiberglass, it also shows Wind Farms and Solar power plants will never supply industry with energy.

Green energy cannot pump water nor can Green energy supply power to the industry that makes Wind Turbines and Solar panels.

 

[antagon]

mdn, you are the person who contends that more energy is used to build wind turbines than is made by them. this is a joke which you cant back up.

if you want to discredit my source, find another one, any one, which is willing to come close to saying that windmills cant recover their manufacture, construction and scrapping cost at all. the study which i referenced claims about a 1:100 ratio based on 2-3 months claimed over 20 to 30 years overall life.

you've engaged in an energy debate without knowing what a terajoule is. it is one trillion watts per second. you can divide it by 3,600,000 to get kW/hours.

edit: (1.9TJ = 1,900,000,000,000)/(((60seconds * 60minutes) * 1,000,000 watts) = 3,600,000,000) = 52.777MW/hours or 52,777kWh

 

[loosecannon]

mdn, you are the person who contends that more energy is used to build wind turbines than is made by them. this is a joke which you cant back up.

if you want to discredit my source, find another one, any one, which is willing to come close to saying that windmills cant recover their manufacture, construction and scrapping cost at all. the study which i referenced claims about a 1:100 ratio based on 2-3 months claimed over 20 to 30 years overall life.

you've engaged in an energy debate without knowing what a terajoule is. it is one trillion watts per second. you can divide it by 3,600,000 to get kW/hours.

edit: (1.9TJ = 1,900,000,000,000)/(((60seconds * 60minutes) * 1,000,000 watts) = 3,600,000,000) = 52.777MW/hours or 52,777kWh

mdn is clueless. He/she or it is unconcerned with facts or reality and fixated purely upon an agenda that "green energy" can't work.

As if Green Energy didn't provide all of our food, heat the earth, support us entirely, and even create us in the first place.

He probably hates women too. Even his own Mom.

 

[mdn2000]

mdn, you are the person who contends that more energy is used to build wind turbines than is made by them. this is a joke which you cant back up.

if you want to discredit my source, find another one, any one, which is willing to come close to saying that windmills cant recover their manufacture, construction and scrapping cost at all. the study which i referenced claims about a 1:100 ratio based on 2-3 months claimed over 20 to 30 years overall life.

you've engaged in an energy debate without knowing what a terajoule is. it is one trillion watts per second. you can divide it by 3,600,000 to get kW/hours.

edit: (1.9TJ = 1,900,000,000,000)/(((60seconds * 60minutes) * 1,000,000 watts) = 3,600,000,000) = 52.777MW/hours or 52,777kWh

You did not link to a source, you linked to a 13 year old report by a subsidized corporation or summary of another study, a study you cannot or will not provide, how am I to respond to tertiary information, at best you posted heresy, you make the claim that wind energy can supply the power it states, this thread is based on an article, that links to a summary, that links to a study, that study states they have no idea, so how is 13 year old at best, "statements" by a foreign subsidized company accurate.

You grasped onto one sentence that states an opinion, your sixteen page summary is not a basis for debate.

So tell me, according to your link, how much energy does it take, your arguing based on the link, so simply tell me the total energy required, in United States units, and you can use your tertiary information that is heresy at best.

You cannot expect a simple link with no analysis by yourself stands as any sort of basis to make your point, especially when the link that this thread is based on states the opposite.

 

[mdn2000]

mdn, you are the person who contends that more energy is used to build wind turbines than is made by them. this is a joke which you cant back up.

if you want to discredit my source, find another one, any one, which is willing to come close to saying that windmills cant recover their manufacture, construction and scrapping cost at all. the study which i referenced claims about a 1:100 ratio based on 2-3 months claimed over 20 to 30 years overall life.

you've engaged in an energy debate without knowing what a terajoule is. it is one trillion watts per second. you can divide it by 3,600,000 to get kW/hours.

edit: (1.9TJ = 1,900,000,000,000)/(((60seconds * 60minutes) * 1,000,000 watts) = 3,600,000,000) = 52.777MW/hours or 52,777kWh

mdn is clueless. He/she or it is unconcerned with facts or reality and fixated purely upon an agenda that "green energy" can't work.

As if Green Energy didn't provide all of our food, heat the earth, support us entirely, and even create us in the first place.

He probably hates women too. Even his own Mom.

He, moron, your study you linked to that you started this thread on states you are wrong. Your study says, "unknown", to cost, power output, maintenance, everything about wind power according the basis of this thread is unknown.

The title of this thread based on the study provided is a lie,

Your link states everything about wind power is "unknown",

can you base an energy policy of a nation, the worlds economic leader, on "unknowns".

The answer is no.

You posted the link, now prove your own link/study is wrong.

Your link states Loosecannon and all that support Wind Power is wrong. How can we argue with your study.

 

[mdn2000]

mdn, you are the person who contends that more energy is used to build wind turbines than is made by them. this is a joke which you cant back up.

if you want to discredit my source, find another one, any one, which is willing to come close to saying that windmills cant recover their manufacture, construction and scrapping cost at all. the study which i referenced claims about a 1:100 ratio based on 2-3 months claimed over 20 to 30 years overall life.

you've engaged in an energy debate without knowing what a terajoule is. it is one trillion watts per second. you can divide it by 3,600,000 to get kW/hours.

edit: (1.9TJ = 1,900,000,000,000)/(((60seconds * 60minutes) * 1,000,000 watts) = 3,600,000,000) = 52.777MW/hours or 52,777kWh

I contend, I am simply stated what the study which is the basis of this thread states, you must disprove the study not me, show me how the study of this thread is wrong.

 

[antagon]

mdn, you are the person who contends that more energy is used to build wind turbines than is made by them. this is a joke which you cant back up.

if you want to discredit my source, find another one, any one, which is willing to come close to saying that windmills cant recover their manufacture, construction and scrapping cost at all. the study which i referenced claims about a 1:100 ratio based on 2-3 months claimed over 20 to 30 years overall life.

you've engaged in an energy debate without knowing what a terajoule is. it is one trillion watts per second. you can divide it by 3,600,000 to get kW/hours.

edit: (1.9TJ = 1,900,000,000,000)/(((60seconds * 60minutes) * 1,000,000 watts) = 3,600,000,000) = 52.777MW/hours or 52,777kWh

You did not link to a source, you linked to a 13 year old report by a subsidized corporation or summary of another study, a study you cannot or will not provide, how am I to respond to tertiary information, at best you posted heresy, you make the claim that wind energy can supply the power it states, this thread is based on an article, that links to a summary, that links to a study, that study states they have no idea, so how is 13 year old at best, "statements" by a foreign subsidized company accurate.

You grasped onto one sentence that states an opinion, your sixteen page summary is not a basis for debate.

So tell me, according to your link, how much energy does it take, your arguing based on the link, so simply tell me the total energy required, in United States units, and you can use your tertiary information that is heresy at best.

You cannot expect a simple link with no analysis by yourself stands as any sort of basis to make your point, especially when the link that this thread is based on states the opposite.

i did the math for you. it is in bold. joules are 'United States units', but kWh is converted so it lines up with your light bill at home.

there is no way based on this 13y/o foreign study that yours/KissMy's idea that it takes more energy to make a windmill than the windmill will produce is based in reality. this is stupidity for anyone to think that is likely. the danish study also shows that the energy cost reduces with time. it is likely that the efficiency of the turbines has improved such that the returns are swifter, too.

you are dense. you believe in bullshit even after being faced with evidence. this makes you an idiot doesn't it?

seriously, what does that make you out to be if not an idiot?

 

[loosecannon]

He, moron, your study you linked to that you started this thread on states you are wrong. Your study says, "unknown", to cost, power output, maintenance, everything about wind power according the basis of this thread is unknown.

The title of this thread based on the study provided is a lie,

Your link states everything about wind power is "unknown",

can you base an energy policy of a nation, the worlds economic leader, on "unknowns".

The answer is no.

You posted the link, now prove your own link/study is wrong.

Your link states Loosecannon and all that support Wind Power is wrong. How can we argue with your study.

If I wanted to argue with the retarded, or the insane you would be one stop shopping.

 

[mdn2000]

I guess this thread is dead,

This threads premise is wrong based on the link and basis for this thread.

Its pretty funny, Green Energy post links to studies that prove Wind Energy does not work than they deny what they post.

Wind is dead, Solar is dead, Geothermal is dead. They are on life support, that being a direct line of support, its attached to my wallet.

 

[Big Fitz]

I guess this thread is dead,

This threads premise is wrong based on the link and basis for this thread.

Its pretty funny, Green Energy post links to studies that prove Wind Energy does not work than they deny what they post.

Wind is dead, Solar is dead, Geothermal is dead. They are on life support, that being a direct line of support, its attached to my wallet.

In an industrialized grid, yes. But... I still maintain that as a supplemental power source for light usage, wind and solar are fine helpers to a solid nuclear, hydro or coal backbone. Geothermal is great in very very isolated areas only.

In 40-75 years, wind and solar may be more than just an afterthought novelty, but still situational and supplimental, but till then... no chance, and geothermal... unless they come up with some freakish sci fi idea, it will never be widespread.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, 10 gw solar this year, 200 gw of wind. That equal to 21 nukes, at considerably less cost. And this is just the beginning.
FuturePundit: 2010 10 Gigawatts Solar Power Install Expected

June 14, 2010
2010 10 Gigawatts Solar Power Install Expected
Eric Wesoff of Green Tech Media reports on their projection that well over 10 gigawatts of solar cells will be installed in 2010.


In 2010, we will cross the threshold of 10 gigawatts of photovoltaic solar installed globally in a single year -- a record-setting and once-inconceivable number.

Rewind to ten years ago: the total amount of photovoltaics installed in the year 2000 was 170 megawatts. Since then, the solar photovoltaic industry has grown at a 51 percent annual growth rate, and 170 megawatts is now the size of a healthy utility installation or a small solar factory.

Contrast that with 200 gigawatts of wind installation this year. Wind continues to far surpass solar power due to lower costs.

 

[Old Rocks]

5 GigaWatt Solar Power Field To Be Built In South Africa | Solar Power

South Africa has recently unveiled plans for building world&#8217;s biggest solar energy park, which, according to officials, will be capable of producing about 5GW of clean electricity.

The country is more than 90% dependent on coal-fired power stations and one in six people still lacks electricity: &#8220;In South Africa over 90% of our power comes from the burning of coal and we need to reduce this because of our international obligations on climate change,&#8221; said Jonathan de Vries, the project manager.

 

[Old Rocks]

First Solar To Build 2-Gigawatt Solar Power Plant in China - Environmental Capital - WSJ

Solar-panel maker First Solar is cracking open the Chinese market, which could become one of the world&#8217;s most promising for solar power.


Arizona-based First Solar said today it signed a deal with Chinese officials to build a 2,000 megawatt solar-power plant in Inner Mongolia over the next decade at an estimated cost of $5 billion to $6 billion.

UPDATE: That figure is apparently what it would cost to build a similar plant in the U.S. today; building a large plant in China in the future would likely cost less, due to labor costs especially, say First Solar spokesmen.

For First Solar, which already has contracts to build smaller, though still utility-size, solar-power plants in the U.S., the Chinese deal could be a game-changer. &#8220;If you have two gigawatts, it could change the image of solar power from niche to nuclear-plant-size installations,&#8221; said First Solar chief executive Mike Ahearn in an interview.

 

[Old Rocks]

Biggest Solar Deal Ever Announced ? We&#8217;re Talking Gigawatts | Wired Science | Wired.com

The largest series of solar installations in history, more than 1,300 megawatts, is planned for the desert outside Los Angeles, according to a new deal between the utility Southern California Edison and solar power plant maker, BrightSource.

The momentous deal will deliver more electricity than even the largest nuclear plant, spread out among seven facilities, the first of which will start up in 2013. When fully operational, the companies say the facility will provide enough electricity to power 845,000 homes &#8212; more than exist in San Francisco &#8212; though estimates like that are notoriously squirrely.

The technology isn&#8217;t the familiar photovoltaics &#8212; the direct conversion of sunlight into electricity &#8212; but solar thermal power, which concentrates the sun&#8217;s rays to create steam in a boiler and spin a turbine.

"We do see solar as the large untapped resource, particularly in Southern California," said Stuart Hemphill, vice president of renewable energy and power at Southern California Edison. "It&#8217;s barely tapped and we&#8217;re eager to see it expand in our portfolio."

BrightSource is the reincarnation of Luz International, which built the only currently operating solar thermal facility during the 1980s in the Mojave Desert. After natural gas and energy prices plunged in 1985, that operation became unprofitable. The group&#8217;s engineers and founders moved the business to Israel, where they continued to work on their technology



Read More Biggest Solar Deal Ever Announced ? We&#8217;re Talking Gigawatts | Wired Science | Wired.com

 

[mdn2000]

I guess this thread is dead,

This threads premise is wrong based on the link and basis for this thread.

Its pretty funny, Green Energy post links to studies that prove Wind Energy does not work than they deny what they post.

Wind is dead, Solar is dead, Geothermal is dead. They are on life support, that being a direct line of support, its attached to my wallet.

In an industrialized grid, yes. But... I still maintain that as a supplemental power source for light usage, wind and solar are fine helpers to a solid nuclear, hydro or coal backbone. Geothermal is great in very very isolated areas only.

In 40-75 years, wind and solar may be more than just an afterthought novelty, but still situational and supplimental, but till then... no chance, and geothermal... unless they come up with some freakish sci fi idea, it will never be widespread.

Geothermal is not great, as you state in very isolated areas, that makes it not great at all. Geothermal is a very varied topic to discuss, each geothermal source is very unique so what I state about one geothermal site cannot be applied to another, they are geophysically to different.

Geothermal in the Salton Sea has been a complete failure.

On wind and solar, they both are complete wastes of energy, nobody can even state how much a electricity a wind farm requires. Wind farms run on the grid, that is a 100% of the power consumed by a wind farm only comes from the grid. It has to, they need clean reliable power to run the computers and radios, pretty funny really, 100% fossil fuel back-up power and 100% reliant on the grid to just be on in case the wind blows and when the wind blows the wind mill always consumes power from the grid.

Anyhow, windmills dont last forever and require millions of tons of fossil fuels to be built. Windmills dont last as long as a fossil fuel plant.

Maybe someone can tell us how a windmill "renews" itself.

 

[mdn2000]

Biggest Solar Deal Ever Announced ? We’re Talking Gigawatts | Wired Science | Wired.com

The largest series of solar installations in history, more than 1,300 megawatts, is planned for the desert outside Los Angeles, according to a new deal between the utility Southern California Edison and solar power plant maker, BrightSource.

The momentous deal will deliver more electricity than even the largest nuclear plant, spread out among seven facilities, the first of which will start up in 2013. When fully operational, the companies say the facility will provide enough electricity to power 845,000 homes — more than exist in San Francisco — though estimates like that are notoriously squirrely.

The technology isn’t the familiar photovoltaics — the direct conversion of sunlight into electricity — but solar thermal power, which concentrates the sun’s rays to create steam in a boiler and spin a turbine.

"We do see solar as the large untapped resource, particularly in Southern California," said Stuart Hemphill, vice president of renewable energy and power at Southern California Edison. "It’s barely tapped and we’re eager to see it expand in our portfolio."

BrightSource is the reincarnation of Luz International, which built the only currently operating solar thermal facility during the 1980s in the Mojave Desert. After natural gas and energy prices plunged in 1985, that operation became unprofitable. The group’s engineers and founders moved the business to Israel, where they continued to work on their technology



Read More Biggest Solar Deal Ever Announced ? We’re Talking Gigawatts | Wired Science | Wired.com

Notice how every solar power plant is going to be bigger than the next, and that is because it has to, they must cover thousands of square miles of land, completely destroying the life on the land, just to provide a tiny bit of energy sometimes.

The worlds largest Solar plant in a short time will have to be torn down and thrown away becoming the worlds largest pile of solar garbage, how many of the worlds largest future garbage piles are we building.

Think about, every thing in solar will be the largest producing the least amount of energy per square foot.

Such a tremendous waste.