6 ms·

How Steady Can Wind Power Blow?

16 points by ph0rque 11y ago

nextweek2 11y ago
Wind is not a practical power generation source. It also has the added drawback of ruining the most scenic and untouched parts of our environment. Accept that only nuclear and solar meet the needs of consumers and move forward.
- sp332 11y ago
  "[E]ven without those subsidies, alternative energies can often compete with traditional sources." http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/business/energy-environment/solar-and-wind-energy-start-to-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/business/energy-environmen... "Wind is now the cheapest way to bring new electricity generation to the grid in the US" http://cleantechnica.com/2015/04/13/solar-wind-power-prices-often-lower-fossil-fuel-power-prices/ http://cleantechnica.com/2015/04/13/solar-wind-power-prices-...
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/08/10/study-finds-that-the-price-of-wind-energy-in-the-united-states-is-at-an-all-time-low-averaging-under-2-5%C2%A2kwh/ http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/08/10/study-finds-that-the-pr... "Wind is a credible source of new electricity generation in the United States. Wind power capacity additions in the United States rebounded in 2014, with $8.3 billion invested in 4.9 gigawatts (GW) of new capacity additions. Wind power has comprised 33% of all new U.S. electric capacity additions since 2007. Wind power currently meets almost 5% of the nation’s electricity demand, and represents more than 12% of total electricity generation in nine states, and more than 20% in three states."
- msisk6 11y ago
  Texas currently has 14 GW of wind generation and another 11 GW coming online over the next 2 years. Seems practical enough.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    I'm honestly surprised states hit by the fracking slowdown (North Dakota and Texas) aren't retraining oil workers to install wind farms. Its safer for them, the work is going to be there for at least a decade, its just the financing we need to get together (y u no DOE energy loan!?)
- pjc50 11y ago
  Nuclear will certainly give you scenic and untouched, given the popularity of photographs of the Chernobyl exclusion zone.
  - Gibbon1 11y ago
    One consideration after 40 years of experience, we can estimate about 1 really serious nuclear incident per 15-20 years. Adding enough nuclear power to cover our energy needs means we need 25 times more reactors than we have now. I don't really like where the math takes me at that point.
abalone 11y ago
This is great but it does conspicuously leave out one major point of contention with wind power which is their visual impact. Sometimes noise too. Offshore projects have been fought and canceled over this issue. And it looks like the key focus of this article, the 60% capacity, is only achievable if the turbines get even bigger: > The average new wind turbine in the US is 80 meters tall at its hub. NREL looks at what capacity factors could be reached with 110 meter tall and 140 meter tall wind turbines. Additionally it looks to on-shore sites primarily in the Midwest where it's really flat and so these monster turbines could be seen for miles. I would certainly hope people are cool with it considering how green a power source it is, but I thought it was a bit odd that such an in-depth piece left out one of the biggest obstacles to wind power growth.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > Additionally it looks to on-shore sites primarily in the Midwest where it's really flat and so these monster turbines could be seen for miles. I would certainly hope people are cool with it considering how green a power source it is, but I thought it was a bit odd that such an in-depth piece left out one of the biggest obstacles to wind power growth. Farmers I've spoken to absolutely love turbines; they receive a lease payment annually for each one on their property. Now, if we're going to complain about "eyesores" through the Dakotas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Oklahoma, perhaps we could address the _actual deaths_ that coal causes first.
  - Gibbon1 11y ago
    Can also mention the eyesores and ecological ruin created by coal mining and oil sands extraction.
  - abalone 11y ago
    So, I'm not saying it's good that people object to them. But they do. And just stating that they shouldn't mind large on-shore wind farms isn't going to fix that. Nor is stating that people who are paid to host them like them. Nor is stating that they're less of an eyesore than coal mines when these people can't see the coal mines in the first place. An in-depth exploration of the expansion of wind power really should address this obstacle too, because it's just as big as the technical aspects.
ph0rque 11y ago
Regarding how they look: am I the only one that thinks wind turbines can be beautiful? I would consider this a beautiful landscape: http://c1cleantechnicacom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2011/10/SiemensWindTurbines.jpg http://c1cleantechnicacom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2011...
- sageabilly 11y ago
  Perhaps from far away; up close all I see is deep cuts to run asphalt and dirt shoulders that are going to churn up mud every time it rains. It's not necessarily that turbines are ugly, to me it's the infrastructure necessary to support the turbines that is ugly.
rokahnhn 11y ago
Makani Power (https://www.google.com/makani/ https://www.google.com/makani/) positions itself as obtaining more power at 250-350m but perhaps a more important metric is obtaining higher "capacity factors" (i.e. more reliable).

16 points by ph0rque 11y ago

Wind is not a practical power generation source. It also has the added drawback of ruining the most scenic and untouched parts of our environment. Accept that only nuclear and solar meet the needs of consumers and move forward.

sp332 11y ago
"[E]ven without those subsidies, alternative energies can often compete with traditional sources." http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/business/energy-environment/solar-and-wind-energy-start-to-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/business/energy-environmen... "Wind is now the cheapest way to bring new electricity generation to the grid in the US" http://cleantechnica.com/2015/04/13/solar-wind-power-prices-often-lower-fossil-fuel-power-prices/ http://cleantechnica.com/2015/04/13/solar-wind-power-prices-...
toomuchtodo 11y ago
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/08/10/study-finds-that-the-price-of-wind-energy-in-the-united-states-is-at-an-all-time-low-averaging-under-2-5%C2%A2kwh/ http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/08/10/study-finds-that-the-pr... "Wind is a credible source of new electricity generation in the United States. Wind power capacity additions in the United States rebounded in 2014, with $8.3 billion invested in 4.9 gigawatts (GW) of new capacity additions. Wind power has comprised 33% of all new U.S. electric capacity additions since 2007. Wind power currently meets almost 5% of the nation’s electricity demand, and represents more than 12% of total electricity generation in nine states, and more than 20% in three states."
msisk6 11y ago
Texas currently has 14 GW of wind generation and another 11 GW coming online over the next 2 years. Seems practical enough.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  I'm honestly surprised states hit by the fracking slowdown (North Dakota and Texas) aren't retraining oil workers to install wind farms. Its safer for them, the work is going to be there for at least a decade, its just the financing we need to get together (y u no DOE energy loan!?)
pjc50 11y ago
Nuclear will certainly give you scenic and untouched, given the popularity of photographs of the Chernobyl exclusion zone.
- Gibbon1 11y ago
  One consideration after 40 years of experience, we can estimate about 1 really serious nuclear incident per 15-20 years. Adding enough nuclear power to cover our energy needs means we need 25 times more reactors than we have now. I don't really like where the math takes me at that point.

abalone 11y ago

This is great but it does conspicuously leave out one major point of contention with wind power which is their visual impact. Sometimes noise too. Offshore projects have been fought and canceled over this issue. And it looks like the key focus of this article, the 60% capacity, is only achievable if the turbines get even bigger: > The average new wind turbine in the US is 80 meters tall at its hub. NREL looks at what capacity factors could be reached with 110 meter tall and 140 meter tall wind turbines. Additionally it looks to on-shore sites primarily in the Midwest where it's really flat and so these monster turbines could be seen for miles. I would certainly hope people are cool with it considering how green a power source it is, but I thought it was a bit odd that such an in-depth piece left out one of the biggest obstacles to wind power growth.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
> Additionally it looks to on-shore sites primarily in the Midwest where it's really flat and so these monster turbines could be seen for miles. I would certainly hope people are cool with it considering how green a power source it is, but I thought it was a bit odd that such an in-depth piece left out one of the biggest obstacles to wind power growth. Farmers I've spoken to absolutely love turbines; they receive a lease payment annually for each one on their property. Now, if we're going to complain about "eyesores" through the Dakotas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Oklahoma, perhaps we could address the _actual deaths_ that coal causes first.
- Gibbon1 11y ago
  Can also mention the eyesores and ecological ruin created by coal mining and oil sands extraction.
- abalone 11y ago
  So, I'm not saying it's good that people object to them. But they do. And just stating that they shouldn't mind large on-shore wind farms isn't going to fix that. Nor is stating that people who are paid to host them like them. Nor is stating that they're less of an eyesore than coal mines when these people can't see the coal mines in the first place. An in-depth exploration of the expansion of wind power really should address this obstacle too, because it's just as big as the technical aspects.

ph0rque 11y ago

Regarding how they look: am I the only one that thinks wind turbines can be beautiful? I would consider this a beautiful landscape: http://c1cleantechnicacom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2011/10/SiemensWindTurbines.jpg http://c1cleantechnicacom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2011...

sageabilly 11y ago
Perhaps from far away; up close all I see is deep cuts to run asphalt and dirt shoulders that are going to churn up mud every time it rains. It's not necessarily that turbines are ugly, to me it's the infrastructure necessary to support the turbines that is ugly.

rokahnhn 11y ago

Makani Power (https://www.google.com/makani/ https://www.google.com/makani/) positions itself as obtaining more power at 250-350m but perhaps a more important metric is obtaining higher "capacity factors" (i.e. more reliable).