Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Wind powered Turbines, Etc., And Their Costs To The Public
#21
Fredledingue Wrote:coalsettommy,
"wind farm", "green energy", "renewable"... it sounds so leftist, so "Obama", so unamerican. Isn't it?

Fred,

next time try answering my actual postings and leave out this silly stuff ok?

By the way here is that question you totally ignored:


Quote:Who paid for it and can you tell us with a straight face that it supplied all the power they needed for years ahead?


Wind power is a NICHE power supply,it can never be the main source of power due to high cost and LOW mass power production.Can not get much $$$ in return for the low production it produces.

In my area there are dozens of windtowers up on the hills to my south east,and I personally knew the director who had them installed.He says that they can only supplement existing Nuclear and Hydroelectric electric production.

Windpower is an overrated source of power.
Reply
#22
Many states require coal companies to "reclaim" their coal mining projects. In Ohio, these reclaimed sites are quite nice places to camp and hike.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#23
sunsetttomy,
Nobody claims that wind is a total replacement for other energies or that it can be sufficient. The point is that the more you have turbines, the more they replace polluting sources. I think Danemark is at 20% right now. That's 20% of their electricity which never produce any pollution.
TBS, IMO, it's difficult to go beyond that, 30% maybe.

To my knowledge wind-generated electricity is used immediately and not stored.

That it acts as a supplement doesn't mean it shouldn't be used.

you Wrote:
I Wrote:"wind farm", "green energy", "renewable"... it sounds so leftist, so "Obama", so unamerican. Isn't it?
next time try answering my actual postings and leave out this silly stuff ok?

I was serious: Fossile fuels like coal and oil is, at AI-Jane, seen as the symbol of Liberty (or Freedom, if JohnL prefers), and anything green seen as part of the the evil leftist Obama agenda.

Oil and also coal is also the symbol of the success of individual enterprise, where poeple became billionaire quickely and out of nothing, almost without effort.
Massive powerplants, deserving millions of poeple are also symbolic of the success of the free individual enterprise, where a handful of huge fortunes are in control of the supply of entire regions, thus through this control, make the governement less important, almost at their mercy, like the big banks do. Through a staged bankrupcy or if they grossly missmanage their company they can demand a bail out because the life of the country depends on them.

Wind farms instead, can be created at every level of size and budget, and scattered geographicaly.
It's a way of producing energy which could allow multiple companies concurencing each others and sharing profits among many poeple, it even allows individuals to ressel their own electricity to the main grid operator. Instead of creating the multi billion fortunes the US is so proud of.

Moreover, wind farms participate de facto to the CO2 cutting effort, something staunchly opposed by AI-Jane members. The goal being to increase C02 to counter climate cooling.

:arrow:In this respect I don't uderstand JohnL's proposal of a giant space born solar panel. That would also reduce CO2, delay drilling in natural reserves, and unless there will be some unknow pollution caused by the wave transmition of this energy, I don't see any advantage of it for the AI-Jane's ideology.
Perhaps JohnL hopes that the microwaves would heat the atmosphere, I don't know.

The only pro AI-Jane thing is that it can be compared to Ronald Reagan's Star War project which never comes through but nevertheless boosts aerospace spendings with potential military use.

Ultimately the point of this ideology is to keep on using fossile oil and coal as it has been done for 100 years because it's the symbol of America (eventhought most of the oil is imported from arab countries, but aren't arab countries under US army occupation or control thus part of the US too?), because it's a tradition of biblical importance.
Reply
#24
Fredledingue Wrote::arrow:In this respect I don't uderstand JohnL's proposal of a giant space born solar panel. That would also reduce CO2, delay drilling in natural reserves, and unless there will be some unknow pollution caused by the wave transmition of this energy, I don't see any advantage of it for the AI-Jane's ideology.
Perhaps JohnL hopes that the microwaves would heat the atmosphere, I don't know.

The only pro AI-Jane thing is that it can be compared to Ronald Reagan's Star War project which never comes through but nevertheless boosts aerospace spendings with potential military use.

Fred, you aren't making any sense here. Please try again, ok?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#25
JOhnL,
My point is very simple and make sens: I don't understand why you would support a project like a space born solar panel and not wind turbines.
Reply
#26
Fredledingue Wrote:JOhnL,
My point is very simple and make sens: I don't understand why you would support a project like a space born solar panel and not wind turbines.

For obvious reasons: practicality.

Wind generators are sweet, but they make noise, kill birds, and require constant Preventive Maintenance. As an old tanker, I know what goes in to preventive maintenance, and keeping those things running, in huge numbers, require huge output of maintenance.

Also, think of the danger to flying aircraft.

Space based solar energy would be tapping into an energy source, which is almost infinite, and will be around for billions more years. After the initial investment, the amount of upkeep, think preventive maintenance, would be minimal.

But the abundance of energy, from just one source, would be astronomical in quantity. And the delivery system, microwave, would be perfectly safe. If you couple that, and nuclear fission, together, the world would have more than enough perfectly clean energy to use. Wind generators are just tinker-toys in comparison
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#27
John L Wrote:
Fredledingue Wrote:JOhnL,
My point is very simple and make sens: I don't understand why you would support a project like a space born solar panel and not wind turbines.

For obvious reasons: practicality.

Wind generators are sweet, but they make noise, kill birds, and require constant Preventive Maintenance. As an old tanker, I know what goes in to preventive maintenance, and keeping those things running, in huge numbers, require huge output of maintenance.

Also, think of the danger to flying aircraft.

Space based solar energy would be tapping into an energy source, which is almost infinite, and will be around for billions more years. After the initial investment, the amount of upkeep, think preventive maintenance, would be minimal.

But the abundance of energy, from just one source, would be astronomical in quantity. And the delivery system, microwave, would be perfectly safe. If you couple that, and nuclear fission, together, the world would have more than enough perfectly clean energy to use. Wind generators are just tinker-toys in comparison
How much maintenance goes into wind Turbines John? And how could you have any realistic idea of maintenance required for a technology that doesn't exist yet such space based solar?
[Image: SalmaHayekcopy.jpg]
Reply
#28
Biker Dude Wrote:...How much maintenance goes into wind Turbines John?
Don Quixote could do a great deal of damage. You can put a patch over the holes in the vanes from his lance, but then they may be out of balance.
Reply
#29
And you never answered why you thought they needed batteries....
[Image: SalmaHayekcopy.jpg]
Reply
#30
Fredledingue Wrote:JOhnL,
My point is very simple and make sens: I don't understand why you would support a project like a space born solar panel and not wind turbines.
isn't that obvious? green energy is threatening oil and coal right now, and his fantasy solution in 200 years from now at the earliest.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#31
quadrat Wrote:
Fredledingue Wrote:JOhnL,
My point is very simple and make sens: I don't understand why you would support a project like a space born solar panel and not wind turbines.
isn't that obvious? green energy is threatening oil and coal right now, and his fantasy solution in 200 years from now at the earliest.

Again,....I am not into Fantasy "Q".
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#32
JohnL Wrote:I am not into Fantasy
No but you are slightly out of touch with technical contingencies.

You are talking about sending into space a structure about 1000 x the size and the weight of the largest object actualy in orbit. While theoricaly possible, it would require 100 x the total rocket launching capacity available globaly.

As for maintance, its cost will be simply astronomical. To get and idea, just ask the Nasa how much it cost to change a hard disk on the Hubble telescope.
You think you can throw such a thing into space and forgetr about it?
Meteors will quickely poke into it. It will need constant repair.
Solar wind will drift it away and it will have to be stabilized with compressed gas engines (the only way that works in absence of atmosphere) which will need constant refueling.

Then you have the little problem of getting the baby geostationary while keeping it under sunlight...

LJ Wrote:Also, think of the danger to flying aircraft (of wind turbine).
Less than the danger to UFOs caused by your cosmic solar panel! S2
Reply
#33
Fredledingue Wrote:
JohnL Wrote:I am not into Fantasy
No but you are slightly out of touch with technical contingencies.

You are talking about sending into space a structure about 1000 x the size and the weight of the largest object actualy in orbit. While theoricaly possible, it would require 100 x the total rocket launching capacity available globaly.

As for maintance, its cost will be simply astronomical. To get and idea, just ask the Nasa how much it cost to change a hard disk on the Hubble telescope.
You think you can throw such a thing into space and forgetr about it?
Meteors will quickely poke into it. It will need constant repair.
Solar wind will drift it away and it will have to be stabilized with compressed gas engines (the only way that works in absence of atmosphere) which will need constant refueling.

Then you have the little problem of getting the baby geostationary while keeping it under sunlight...

LJ Wrote:Also, think of the danger to flying aircraft (of wind turbine).
Less than the danger to UFOs caused by your cosmic solar panel! S2

Sigh,................Fred, you are not good at using imagination, are you? The reflector only needs to be a thin sheet which can be unwrapped to huge size, and still only be tiny in weight. In space, even a one mil thickness is more than enough to gather light energy.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#34
what doesn't solve the fundamental problems with solar power yet, the low efficiency of solar panels (< 20%), and the little energy that can be collected per area. why go to space at all? there's space on earth. trapping sunlight, and turning it into microwaves. nonsense.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#35
Go to Vegas. Every other house has either solar panels or solar water piping. They are also almost all broken and not providing anyone any benefit.
Reply
#36
We're probably only a few years from having new solar panels that are @80% efficient. The new nano-antenna solar material that Idaho National Lab is working on is looking like a cheap, efficient way to capture sunlight and turn it into electricity.

INL
Reply
#37
Plenty of links within these sites. Read some of this Fred, and you will change your attitude. Wink1

Space Based Solar Power

Space Solar Power

Solar Power from Space:
Moving Beyond Science Fiction
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#38
Huh...What? Wrote:We're probably only a few years from having new solar panels that are @80% efficient. The new nano-antenna solar material that Idaho National Lab is working on is looking like a cheap, efficient way to capture sunlight and turn it into electricity.

INL
Maybe more than a few for 80%, but you can have 30%ers now no problem.

The trend that John is missing is that the future of power generation is 'generate-at-use-site'. More big huge massive projects that require huge power grids is not in our future.
[Image: SalmaHayekcopy.jpg]
Reply
#39
Actually, the 30% are not "no problem." They are fragile and quirky and very expensive. As far as I know Ovshinsky is the most interesting lab in the world and much is happening, but no break-throughs yet. He is making glass do things that everyone said it can't do.

There are Edisons all over the place trying to build things from the settled science, and a few visionaries trying to be the contemporary Tesla.

When a break-through happens, it will change the world as we know it - but what that will be is anybody's guess. I doubt it will be all that complicated.
Reply
#40
Heavy? Yes. Fragile? To a degree. Quirky? Not at all, the tech for these panels has been around for 50 years. Expensive, it varies but no not cheap. Possible? Yes every day exactly like I stated.

If you want to see really interesting stuff, NREL is where it happens. That and R&D labs. Can't say what we have going on, but panel break through's happens all the time.

And no, wind generators do not have batteries in them.
[Image: SalmaHayekcopy.jpg]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)