• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

‘The sound of money’: Wind energy is booming in deep-red Republican states

Speaking of tidal, I was up at work this morning, and my building overlooks an NRG facility,
normally they have big turbine blades ready to ship, industrial generators, ect, but they had
what looked like an enormous ship propeller in staging, and to my knowledge, they only do power generation.
I was musing awhile ago about a pipe or bladder or something long that floats and has something inside that rolls back and forth while it rocks on the waves. I don't know where the idea comes from, something I read somewhere I guess.
I wish I had property beside a creek or river. I'd produce mini hydro, little generators like electric boat motors.
In the future power generation might be more local so we dont need the enourmous grid of high tension power lines running thousands of miles.
 
I was musing awhile ago about a pipe or bladder or something long that floats and has something inside that rolls back and forth while it rocks on the waves. I don't know where the idea comes from, something I read somewhere I guess.
I wish I had property beside a creek or river. I'd produce mini hydro, little generators like electric boat motors.
In the future power generation might be more local so we dont need the enourmous grid of high tension power lines running thousands of miles.
I think there was an article in popular science, from the 70's that had two barges hinged together.
the waves would cause one to flex in relation to the other, and I think it compressed air to be sent to a turbine.
 
Your silly link has about enough credibility as this one:


And your silly claims that this is all no big deal have about enough credibility as this one:

 
Unless there's some sort of technological miracle thats invented and can generate a huge amount of energy from a slight gust of wind, this tech is a dead end, and we're better off doing something else.

Ok so you have no idea.
 
Ok so you have no idea.
By the beginning of the steam age, wind power reached it's early zenith, with louvers on the blades and centrifugal
governors, to keep a constant speed in any wind above a certain level.
Modern wind turbines require very clean air, the problem is that very clear air flow is an unnatural state near the ground.
I think there may be some low tech solutions that my produce power in more diverse locations, they may not be as efficient,
but wind is just distributed solar power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
By the beginning of the steam age, wind power reached it's early zenith, with louvers on the blades and centrifugal
governors, to keep a constant speed in any wind above a certain level.
Modern wind turbines require very clean air, the problem is that very clear air flow is an unnatural state near the ground.
I think there may be some low tech solutions that my produce power in more diverse locations, they may not be as efficient,
but wind is just distributed solar power.

If there’s money to be made the technology will continue to get better.
 
Businesses are always getting subsidized in the name of jobs.
Sort of, sometimes the government backs poorly conceived ideas like corn ethanol, and poorly executed ideas like Solyndra.
 
And your silly claims that this is all no big deal have about enough credibility as this one:

I have no doubt you think gossip mags are all about science. Good job.

Ok so you have no idea.
You love neo-luddism. We get it already.
 
Natural gas sure. Wind and solar would be a supplement to existing grid at best. If you saw my earlier post on NYC's yearly energy consumption alone, you can do the math on acreage needed just to supply that high density, small geographical area. Unless we change how we consume energy or if things become amazingly more efficient, not gonna happen. I do agree that the US needs to free itself from hostile areas providing oil and do more at home.

High pop density areas are a bad example. Except TX, all states are hooked-up the "the grid" so as to assure high density states get what they need. The US has the land necessary. It's matter of being cost effective and practicable. Wind and solar are cost competitive with NG and improving while NG is not. If all available land were used for wind and solar to cover all US electricity needs, it would not be practicable until we have the capacity for battery storage of produced energy, where the technology needs to be improved to get there.
 
Two problems with that.

First, "Petroleum" is a little used power generation that is probably as dirty as coal.

Second, it's very difficult to keep the power steady with more and more chaotic power added. Natural gas does cycle up fast enough, so the more renewables you have, the more rolling blackouts you will have.

It takes time to heat the boilers up. Hydropower takes very little time to change the flow of water through the turbines.

There is no Utopia... Your Unicorn is lying to you.

It doesn't matter that little "oil" is used to generate electricity. It's that non-oil/coal generated electricity can replace enough oil use for a cleaner environment and less dependency on oil, incl oil producing countries. That's the salient fact.
 
It doesn't matter that little "oil" is used to generate electricity. It's that non-oil/coal generated electricity can replace enough oil use for a cleaner environment and less dependency on oil, incl oil producing countries. That's the salient fact.
Are you advocating we burn more coal?
 
Even if wind and solar could replace all fossil fuel plants and somehow provide energy when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow you would need solar and wind farms from horizon to horizon. Doesn’t sound appealing to me.

Battery storage of energy makes up for when the sun don't shine and the wind doesn't blow. That is where the most improvement is needed.

I'd rather put up with the appearance of wind turbines and solar capture than being at the mercy we are now of petroleum and it's warming the planet and threatening national security due to dependence on foreign oil in global context.
 
Battery storage of energy makes up for when the sun don't shine and the wind doesn't blow. That is where the most improvement is needed.

I'd rather put up with the appearance of wind turbines and solar capture than being at the mercy we are now of petroleum and it's warming the planet and threatening national security due to dependence on foreign oil in global context.
I had run the numbers once, and I think we would need some 200 million acres of solar panels
to replace the energy we currently get from fossil fuels. This may sound like a large number, but many of those could be on rooftops, or covering parking lots or buildings.
This is based on an estimate, How much land does solar need to generate a megawatt hour?,
Calculating the average across several large solar projects in the US, it takes 2.97 acres of solar panels to generate a gigawatt hours of electricity (GWh) per year.
That said the electricity generated would have to be captured and stored to provide 100% duty cycle coverage,
and quite a bit of it would need to be stored as transport fuels, for applications that is yet out of reach for battery technology.
 
That's right. Go with the masses. Just remember the "m" is usually silent.

You, being amongst the mass of science-deniers, attach yourself to ignorance like the mass with the silent "m". You'll always be "behind" the science.
 
I had run the numbers once, and I think we would need some 200 million acres of solar panels
to replace the energy we currently get from fossil fuels. This may sound like a large number, but many of those could be on rooftops, or covering parking lots or buildings.
This is based on an estimate, How much land does solar need to generate a megawatt hour?,

That said the electricity generated would have to be captured and stored to provide 100% duty cycle coverage,
and quite a bit of it would need to be stored as transport fuels, for applications that is yet out of reach for battery technology.
Just a guess, but isn't batter storage about five times the cost of wind or solar?

Does anyone have those numbers?
 
These are smaller systems without adequate battery life for 24/7/365 operation. Add more batteries, and what is the cost...
Anyone who is realistic has a generator in the mix, because an extra cloudy day, and there goes your freezer full of supplies.
both the size of the batteries, as well as the size of the array, would have to be much larger to go several days without sun.
 
Anyone who is realistic has a generator in the mix, because an extra cloudy day, and there goes your freezer full of supplies.
both the size of the batteries, as well as the size of the array, would have to be much larger to go several days without sun.
Yep. For my area, the sunlight is only about 8-9 hours in the winter. Then unless you have a tracking array to get full sunlight, the need for so much extra panel capacity is real. Then you need to provide adequate power to drive the heating system too.

Unless shown otherwise, I'm sticking to my SWAG estimate of approximately five times the cost of batteries to keep power flowing 24/7/365 on city the grid. If batteries cost as much as solar for power, then we are looking at solar actually being six times what is advertise.

I'm not too keen on paying over 70 cents per kWh.
 
Yep. For my area, the sunlight is only about 8-9 hours in the winter. Then unless you have a tracking array to get full sunlight, the need for so much extra panel capacity is real. Then you need to provide adequate power to drive the heating system too.

Unless shown otherwise, I'm sticking to my SWAG estimate of approximately five times the cost of batteries to keep power flowing 24/7/365 on city the grid. If batteries cost as much as solar for power, then we are looking at solar actually being six times what is advertise.

I'm not too keen on paying over 70 cents per kWh.
The other option is not batteries, but storing all the surplus from Spring and Fall (when people do not need much heat or AC),
as man made CH4, to be run in the backup power plants in Winter and Summer when the demand is higher.
The gas grid has a decent amount of storage capability, and more could be built out as needed.
 
The other option is not batteries, but storing all the surplus from Spring and Fall (when people do not need much heat or AC),
as man made CH4, to be run in the backup power plants in Winter and Summer when the demand is higher.
The gas grid has a decent amount of storage capability, and more could be built out as needed.
For an individual system, I would buy nickle-iron batteries. I'm speaking of affordamble power for residence in a city, where the city no longer uses fossil fuel for power generation, but relies on solar and wind with batteries, for black-out free service.
 
For an individual system, I would buy nickle-iron batteries. I'm speaking of affordamble power for residence in a city, where the city no longer uses fossil fuel for power generation, but relies on solar and wind with batteries, for black-out free service.
I think realistically we need seasonal storage, something that will last for months.
I do not know much about the Nickle-iron batteries, how much of their charge will they lose per day?
 
I think realistically we need seasonal storage, something that will last for months.
I do not know much about the Nickle-iron batteries, how much of their charge will they lose per day?
They have poor retention, and are heavy. They are good for the day/night cycle, but not weeks. They last over 50 years, and if properly maintained, possibly hundreds. Very durable, no fire hazard, etc.

I think I first mentioned them here over seven years ago:

 
Back
Top Bottom