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

[KissMy]

Fucking dumb. Iowa already produces 14% of the electricity it uses from the wind. And that number is going up as we speak.

A combination of wind, solar, and geothermal could easily, with the existing hydro, power this whole nation. Add nuclear into the mix, and a nationwide distributed grid, and we could have clean power for the foreseeable future.

Yea 14% from wind, but they will never get over 25% from wind unless we figure out how to store the power to reuse on demand. I just spent a day with a group of Iowa farmers that have many 2 mega watt wind turbines on their property. They love the wind right & lease fees they are making from their properties. Investors in these wind projects will be crying the blues once they install enough to get closer to 25% & have to start dumping power & loosing money.

New York Times: Wind Drives Growing Use of Batteries

As the wind installations multiply, companies have found themselves dumping energy late at night, adjusting the blades so they do not catch the wind, because there is no demand for the power. And grid operators, accustomed to meeting demand by adjusting supplies, are now struggling to maintain stability as supplies fluctuate.

These wind companies take out huge government backed loans to put up these wind turbines that cost over $2 million for each wind turbine. Each of these wind projects have to build a small power grid & transformer sub-stations to pump their power onto the grid (more millions of dollars). They base their income projections to pay back the loans on producing & selling power for the 25% of the time that the wind blows. If there is not enough demand when the wind blows & they have to dump power & not sell all they can then their business model is fucked & they will go under. Guess who has to cover all those government backed wind loans?

 

[antagon]

Now that's attractive!

well, i like the look of it. imagine the fishing round them things!

 

[antagon]

i think the thread is based in a great deal of optimism, and there would need to be some technological development commensurate with moving our energy sources between any media at all. pointing that out as if it poses an argument against developing alt energy is what confuses me. some folks are so wrapped up in diametric opposition of the future that it betrays even more far-fetched optimism in staying the course. the environmental, economic and geopolitical externalities of the status quo into the future is not sustainable. we will be left with a massive infrastructure for exploiting waning and dearer commodities, years behind development the rest of the world has undertaken. this is known as standing with your dick in your hand.

 

[Spoonman]

Wind, Solar, Geo-thermal, Slow Current, there are many, many alternative energy systems coming on line now that are not only non-poluting, but also cheaper than dirty coal.

In fact, other than political opposition, the primary problem today is the grid. It is not designed for distributed sources. We need to access where our best energy resources are, and put in the grid to access the resources. An example of this that I have personally explored for my own pleasure is the area in Southeastern Oregon. The basalt ridges in this area are prime wind areas, the basins have extensive geo-thermal potential, and there is enough sunlight for both photovoltaic and solar thermal. One grid leg could pick up all of this.

"Best energy resources"? That wouldn't include natural gas would it?

Fracking sucks. Killing water supplies man.

 

[Spoonman]

We got some big ass wind farms a little north of me. From what I hear they are producing a ton of energy at a nice profit.

 

[mdn2000]

Here should be the nations goals by 2025:
Wind - 25% (yes it will require a lot of construction and possibly better technology, but I am a believer because of what IL has accomplished in should a short time)
Solar - 10% (Technology MUST get better, but I think it could be possible it plants are built in the right parts of the country - Sunbelt states like AZ and NV.)
Hydro -15% (There are alot of untapped and under-tapped stated like VT, ME, NH, CO, UT that could start to develop Hydro energy, but efficiency would also have to increase also - Look at some states like OR they are getting 90% of energy from Hydro)
Biomass - 5% (Make the nations waste turn into something beneficial other than waste)
That's 55% renewable green sources!

Nuclear - 25% (It makes no sense why its been decades since we expanded our nuclear products or why no nuclear plants have been built in the last few decades)
Coal and Natural Gas - 20% (Call me a hippie, but I prefer the others above over these 2).
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2715007-post1.html

But more important than this is getting our cars off of oil, esp foreign oil!

Your targets are a physical impossibility
-Wind only creates power 25% of the time.
-Solar only creates power 15% of the time.
A lot of the time the wind blows while the sun shines. So these percentages overlap. There is no way to store enough power for the days the wind does not blow or sun don't shine. You will need way more hydro electric storage than we have room for. V2G Hybrid Electric Autos can help with storage on a smart grid.

You also can't have nuclear plants as your only source of power when the wind & sun are not producing. Nuclear Plants take most of the day to ramp power up & down. They are only good for base-load power & are very expensive. We will still be dependent on fossil fuels for peak & swing power loads, because these plants can respond very rapidly.

I read somewhere that Texas wind farms generate more power than the grid consumes while the wind blows. The problem is transmission line operators won't send the excess power to other regions or states during these high production periods. These wind farms have to dump & burn off this excess power. By not being able to sell this power when the wind blows these wind farms may go broke.

Fucking dumb. Iowa already produces 14% of the electricity it uses from the wind. And that number is going up as we speak.

A combination of wind, solar, and geothermal could easily, with the existing hydro, power this whole nation. Add nuclear into the mix, and a nationwide distributed grid, and we could have clean power for the foreseeable future.

Old Crock the political hack dumb ass, I already told you Geothermal dont work, care for me to link the thread, briefly you stated the plant on the Salton Sea I referred to had a design flaw thus it had nothing to do with Geothermal, in the same thread two days later Old Crock posted and linked to an old article showing a geothermal plant that was making 250 million dollars through precious metal recovery, I had to correct Old Crock, Old Crock is so dumb, Old Crock started a plant had a design flaw and a day later claimed that same exact plant was recovering Gold and Silver, the plant was a complete failure, a 250 million dollar loss, the company was okay though, after all it was only a subsidy and a government guaranteed loan, I get to pay more for electricity and taxes to make corporations rich and risk free.

Take a look at this thread, it links to a press release, the study which is the basis of this thread for all we know does not exist, it will not be completed until next year. How is it they know the conclusion of the study before the study is even started.

So Old Crock, you a liar, I have shown over and over that Geothermal is extremely polluting, bad environmentally, yet Old Crock continues to post that Geothermal is good. So Old Crock is either real stupid or a liar.

 

[antagon]

geothermal power does not have to emit pollution at all. geothermal is a broad group of potential power sources from the heat of the earth.

 

[Big Fitz]

U.S. offshore winds, abundant off the coasts of 26 states, have the potential to generate four times as much power as the nation's present electric capacity, a new Department of Energy report says.

Developing this resource would help the United States reduce air pollution, achieve 20% of its electricity (or about 54 gigawatts) from wind by 2030 and create more than 43,000 permanent, well-paid technical jobs, according to the 240-page study by DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Study: Offshore wind could generate all U.S. electricity - Green House - USATODAY.com

nuf sed

I've got a perpetual motion machine to sell the OP. No really... it works!

 

[Big Fitz]

​

Now that's attractive!

I think it actually looks really cool, but of course, I'm and engineer. We like big shiny things.

Yep. Nice and shiny until that first Nor'Easter rolls through and uses those pinwheels as projectiles. Can't wait for the first freighter to hit one in foul weather. Nothing like a few navigation hazards like that out there. But if you gotta put em somewhere... offshore and out of sight could be good. Except making the costs to maintain them and get the electricity to shore reliably during shitty weather is going to be tricky.

 

[antagon]

​

Now that's attractive!

I think it actually looks really cool, but of course, I'm and engineer. We like big shiny things.

Yep. Nice and shiny until that first Nor'Easter rolls through and uses those pinwheels as projectiles. Can't wait for the first freighter to hit one in foul weather. Nothing like a few navigation hazards like that out there. But if you gotta put em somewhere... offshore and out of sight could be good. Except making the costs to maintain them and get the electricity to shore reliably during shitty weather is going to be tricky.

its not like this shit hasn't been done successfully before.

 

[loosecannon]

i think the thread is based in a great deal of optimism, and there would need to be some technological development commensurate with moving our energy sources between any media at all. pointing that out as if it poses an argument against developing alt energy is what confuses me. some folks are so wrapped up in diametric opposition of the future that it betrays even more far-fetched optimism in staying the course. the environmental, economic and geopolitical externalities of the status quo into the future is not sustainable. we will be left with a massive infrastructure for exploiting waning and dearer commodities, years behind development the rest of the world has undertaken. this is known as standing with your dick in your hand.

I think "dick in the sand" is the proper terminology, as in Iraq oil sands, Canadian tar sands, etc.

Pounding sand, etc.

 

[KissMy]

i think the thread is based in a great deal of optimism, and there would need to be some technological development commensurate with moving our energy sources between any media at all. pointing that out as if it poses an argument against developing alt energy is what confuses me. some folks are so wrapped up in diametric opposition of the future that it betrays even more far-fetched optimism in staying the course. the environmental, economic and geopolitical externalities of the status quo into the future is not sustainable. we will be left with a massive infrastructure for exploiting waning and dearer commodities, years behind development the rest of the world has undertaken. this is known as standing with your dick in your hand.

I think "dick in the sand" is the proper terminology, as in Iraq oil sands, Canadian tar sands, etc.

Pounding sand, etc.

Well dick-less, Where is the magic energy storage device?

Oh I know, Big Oil hid it from us.

Besides that obvious problem limiting wind & solar power, where are we going to get more rare earth materials to build more wind turbines?

 

[antagon]

this is the sort of objection based in the fallacy that wind-turbine power is not plausible or practical. how does this magic produce 100s of megawatts of power as we speak? since when has demand for under-exploited raw materials in a country like the US been a problem?

 

[martybegan]

​

Now that's attractive!

I think it actually looks really cool, but of course, I'm and engineer. We like big shiny things.

Yep. Nice and shiny until that first Nor'Easter rolls through and uses those pinwheels as projectiles. Can't wait for the first freighter to hit one in foul weather. Nothing like a few navigation hazards like that out there. But if you gotta put em somewhere... offshore and out of sight could be good. Except making the costs to maintain them and get the electricity to shore reliably during shitty weather is going to be tricky.

The high wind issue is not a big deal as long as the control system is working to thread the blades properly. The freighter concern isnt really an issue, as only an idiot would place these things anywhere near a shipping lane.

Maintenance is an issue for any power source.

Complaints against renewable energy should focus on the fact that they arent mature enough yet to compete on thier own, and need goverment subsidies to make viable. All power sources have downsides, ranging from finite sources of fuel to high maintenance requirements, to polluting off gasses.

 

[editec]

I don't doubt that wind generated electicity has a place in the energy production mix.

I'm dubious that it alone can be our only source of power.

Not because the power isn't there, but because we need continuous power and that means we need something more dependable than just wind.

Now if we converted wind's power to potential energy (like using it to store potential energy in water that we can run through a hydroelectic system when it's needed) that might help.

But neither wind NOR solar is dependable UNLESS we find ways of storing the excess when we need it to deal with the shortages that are inevitable.

 

[martybegan]

I don't doubt that wind generated electicity has a place in the energy production mix.

I'm dubious that it alone can be our only source of power.

Not because the power isn't there, but because we need continuous power and that means we need something more dependable than just wind.

Now if we converted wind's power to potential energy (like using it to store potential energy in water that we can run through a hydroelectic system when it's needed) that might help.

But neither wind NOR solar is dependable UNLESS we find ways of storing the excess when we need it to deal with the shortages that are inevitable.

Exactly. The Engineering issues involved have mostly to do with our power grid, making transmission more efficent, and able to switch sources.

Wind will always be blowing SOMEWHERE. If you only counted a portion of the overall wind power provided as constant, you could be assured that it would not go below baseline.

This again assumes increases in materials technology for transmisson wires, and increases in power grid controls.

 

[Big Fitz]

The high wind issue is not a big deal as long as the control system is working to thread the blades properly.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3FZtmlHwcA[/ame]

The freighter concern isnt really an issue, as only an idiot would place these things anywhere near a shipping lane.

Hmmmm. They want to put these off Cape Cod which is a very busy shipping area all things considered. A big storm plus a ship in trouble... shit happens. Just waiting for the first time it does.

Maintenance is an issue for any power source.

Much harder to service isolated out to sea in a place with strong currents, frequent storms and rough weather... which is where you get the most wind generation. For instance, why would you wan to put tidal power in the bay of Fundy? a 70 foot tide! Windmills go where the wind is highest, makes the sea a good choice in this factor. BUT, they have to be shut down when the wind is too strong which very well may be frequently out there.

Complaints against renewable energy should focus on the fact that they arent mature enough yet to compete on thier own

Glad you see that.

and need goverment subsidies to make viable.

WRONG. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. Fucking WRONG

They need to be SHELVED as policy and pushed back to the lab till they ARE viable. Period. You go to what works best, and that is Coal. That is Nuclear. That is Hydro. You don't play fuck around fuck around pretending that these bad forms of energy production are worthy of support till they PROVE it. And once they become viable, the market will fund them till the day something better comes along.

Remember: Bigger, Better, Faster, Stronger, Cheaper, Cleaner.... That is the nature of improvement and economic efficiency and smart policy. You don't waste money on something that doesn't match this philosophy, unless you have economic suicide as your goal.

All power sources have downsides

Yes, they do. But most are overstated by the econazis to push bad solutions and global fascism on an imaginary crisis. This eliminates the argument that their clean energies are substantially better, when they can't carry the freight.

ranging from finite sources of fuel to high maintenance requirements, to polluting off gasses.

Finite sources. The only ones who 'see the end' of petroleum are those who have a vested interest in it's stoppage. High maintenance is often caused by stupid government regulations and NIMBY bullshit. Polluting gasses, If you include CO2 with that, you're mad. Global warming, or whatever they're trying to rebrand it as today, is not a threat. It is not caused by man. Pretty much every past attempt to do so has ended in their science being debunked by basic logic and cursory investigations of their methods as being fraudulent.

The need for this crap snaps like the dead dry twig it is.

 

[mdn2000]

U.S. offshore winds, abundant off the coasts of 26 states, have the potential to generate four times as much power as the nation's present electric capacity, a new Department of Energy report says.

Developing this resource would help the United States reduce air pollution, achieve 20% of its electricity (or about 54 gigawatts) from wind by 2030 and create more than 43,000 permanent, well-paid technical jobs, according to the 240-page study by DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Study: Offshore wind could generate all U.S. electricity - Green House - USATODAY.com

nuf sed

Thank Loosecannon for the information, or maybe negative rep, this is too funny, what a dumbass, loosecannon is arguing about dirt in the other thread and now you post this for me, which side are you on, you made my morning loosecannon

Whats wrong loosecannon, you cant think for yourself, all you know is what told to you in a headline.

Loosecannon has made my argument, wind power is dead, nobody of intelligence would spend money on something unknown, nobody would spend money on something if the people who advocate it say they dont know if it will work.

Loosecannon is a great example of people who know nothing of what they post, loosecannon is so incompetent, so lazy, so full of himself, so ignorant he simply takes the first paid result from google, reads the headline, and thinks he is right or worst knows he is wrong but is someone with a financial interest in promoting non-existent green energy.

Loosecannon, you know there is a study related to the article, why link an article when the study is the source? Either loosecannon is lazy, dumb, never learned how to think or loosecannon's agenda is to destroy the USA with green energy, that is what green energy is doing, destroying the country.

Wind Farms do not work, as the study states.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/49229.pdf

The LCOE calculations, or the cost of energy produced over the anticipated 20-year life of a project, are based on a range of factors, many of which are currently unknown and must be projected. In addition to the ICC, these include operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, the cost of financing, amount of energy to be generated, long-term system reliability, and decommissioning costs.

From the supporters of Green Energy, to the Politicians, to the Scientist, they are forcing us to pay for expensive wind mills when they know they do not work. They are giving our money, our taxes, taxes are not enough, we have to pay more for electricity as well.

People should note this thread, nothing more need be said, this study ends the debate, wind mills do not work. Everything that say wind mills work, is a lie.

a link to an article, which links to the report, that links to the study, as posted by loosecannon, talk about a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. Not very intelligent research on Loosecannon's part.

And its not just Loosecannon, every scientist to every politician does the same thing. Obfuscate the facts.

Loosecannon feel bad, Old Crock does this all the time.

 

[California Girl]

Key word from the study: "could". That's not "would" or "will", it's "could".

 

[antagon]

They need to be SHELVED as policy and pushed back to the lab till they ARE viable. Period. You go to what works best, and that is Coal. That is Nuclear. That is Hydro. You don't play fuck around fuck around pretending that these bad forms of energy production are worthy of support till they PROVE it. And once they become viable, the market will fund them till the day something better comes along.

the nonsense persists through contending that offshore wind power is not viable when hundreds of MW are generated that way now for years.

to the contrary, i think that heating dearer and dearer water up with shit we've dug or pumped out of the ground is likely to be shelved in the coming decades, because of the effective inefficiency of the practice. it's not just the wattage, it is the pollution, the waste, the water consumption, the hazard and the land use that makes this approach inefficient. certainly pushing the development of new coal reactors is less wise year on year. reactors altogether are impacting the per-capita consumption of water and pose a bottleneck for that reason alone.

prescience points to solutions like offshore wind. in fact, we're dragging our feet where other nations have a head start.