3 ms·

> But operators are trying to work out kinks and find ways to lower energy costs, possibly through such alternatives as wind power. This is such a wtf. If win

> But operators are trying to work out kinks and find ways to lower energy costs, possibly through such alternatives as wind power. This is such a wtf. If wind power was lower in cost, why wouldn't everyone use it over diesel? It's always a huge warning sign to me. A project, that looks exciting and new, also powered by renewables.

deftnerd 10y ago
Wind makes sense in a big way too. If you have a building that's heated on the inside, and the air is still outside, it won't lose as much heat to the environment as it would if the wind was blowing at 30mph. Much like how solar is super useful on bright hot summer days in the south... It gives the most power when you want the AC on the most
- aaron695 10y ago
  If it's efficient for the hydro setup to use wind for heating, why not the rest of the village? My point stands? A better example 'might' be plants can take random times of darkness in their stride so random blackouts don't matter. But given the high cost of the setup I doubt you'd want to screw with efficiency.
  - claudius 10y ago
    Up until very recently, fossil fuel was cheap and there was little incentive to invest in other resources such as wind or solar. Furthermore, there was relatively little political incentive to avoid fossil fuels. Both of these things have changed and large amounts of money have subsequently been invested in renewable energy sources, making them cheaper (mass-produced) and more reliable (better technology). If you were to re-build the town today, wind farms and battery storage may well be the most economic choice, but to switch to wind, it not only has to be cheaper (and more environmentally friendly) but also so much cheaper that the initial investment costs are returned in a reasonably timeframe.
  - atrus 10y ago
    Because there are other things to consider besides efficiency. You don't just swap out your stack on a whim, because you lose other things like experience. There are probably people up there who can fix a diesel generator in a snowstorm blindfolded using a part they had in their garage from 10 years back. They could probably fix a wind turbine. But probably isn't the word you want when your whole town is dependent on that power source. So you start small, fix the problems that will arise, gain a knowledge base, and THEN move on to bigger things.
    - aaron695 10y ago
      The garden is their whole business so for the exact same reason you would not risk it.
  - digler999 10y ago
    Nobody said you can't use wind energy for more than one thing. In addition, demand isn't static (for a village). Whereas demand is static for the heating of the greenhouse, and only changes twice a day for the lighting. So wind energy could be utilized more efficiently.
hossbeast 10y ago
Because of the upfront capital expenditure? This is a small town of 3000 people
bildung 10y ago
An economics professor and one of her students are walking down the street together. The student says “Hey, look, there’s a $20 bill on the sidewalk!” The professor replies by saying “That’s impossible- if it really were a $20 bill, it would have been picked up by now."
- aaron695 10y ago
  And would you pick it up if it cost you $18 and been there for a week? The meme of funny stories about economics professor wears a bit thin really. Its a harder degree than many people who create these stories have. If these $20 bills pay off then do it for real not on top of another risky project of picking up a $50 bill for $45
  - bildung 10y ago
    My point was that you cannot deduce unprofitability of wind power from the fact that the place currently runs on diesel. By that reasoning, it makes no sense to install wind power anywhere, because surely in most other cases there were existing power plants, too.
    - ars 10y ago
      > By that reasoning, it makes no sense to install wind power anywhere, because surely in most other cases there were existing power plants, too. The difference is installing wind power for general purpose use, vs installing it specifically for a single project. Installing some new power source specially for one project is a red flag, exactly like he says. If it was a good idea it would be installed for general use.
    - aaron695 10y ago
      I found you point to be, because economists who have done many years of study are stupid and won't pick up $20 because of their many many years of study in the subject would for some reason ditch logic and not pick up a $20 bill. They are stupid people who study at university who reduce brain capacity. Maybe I'm stupid too but, if wind power worked there then that can be the project, no need to add the agriculture on top of it.Why the hell make it harder and use it on only a untested (For viability) growing machine that might make peoples lives better?

deftnerd 10y ago

Wind makes sense in a big way too. If you have a building that's heated on the inside, and the air is still outside, it won't lose as much heat to the environment as it would if the wind was blowing at 30mph. Much like how solar is super useful on bright hot summer days in the south... It gives the most power when you want the AC on the most

aaron695 10y ago
If it's efficient for the hydro setup to use wind for heating, why not the rest of the village? My point stands? A better example 'might' be plants can take random times of darkness in their stride so random blackouts don't matter. But given the high cost of the setup I doubt you'd want to screw with efficiency.
- claudius 10y ago
  Up until very recently, fossil fuel was cheap and there was little incentive to invest in other resources such as wind or solar. Furthermore, there was relatively little political incentive to avoid fossil fuels. Both of these things have changed and large amounts of money have subsequently been invested in renewable energy sources, making them cheaper (mass-produced) and more reliable (better technology). If you were to re-build the town today, wind farms and battery storage may well be the most economic choice, but to switch to wind, it not only has to be cheaper (and more environmentally friendly) but also so much cheaper that the initial investment costs are returned in a reasonably timeframe.
- atrus 10y ago
  Because there are other things to consider besides efficiency. You don't just swap out your stack on a whim, because you lose other things like experience. There are probably people up there who can fix a diesel generator in a snowstorm blindfolded using a part they had in their garage from 10 years back. They could probably fix a wind turbine. But probably isn't the word you want when your whole town is dependent on that power source. So you start small, fix the problems that will arise, gain a knowledge base, and THEN move on to bigger things.
  - aaron695 10y ago
    The garden is their whole business so for the exact same reason you would not risk it.
- digler999 10y ago
  Nobody said you can't use wind energy for more than one thing. In addition, demand isn't static (for a village). Whereas demand is static for the heating of the greenhouse, and only changes twice a day for the lighting. So wind energy could be utilized more efficiently.

hossbeast 10y ago

Because of the upfront capital expenditure? This is a small town of 3000 people

bildung 10y ago

An economics professor and one of her students are walking down the street together. The student says “Hey, look, there’s a $20 bill on the sidewalk!” The professor replies by saying “That’s impossible- if it really were a $20 bill, it would have been picked up by now."

aaron695 10y ago
And would you pick it up if it cost you $18 and been there for a week? The meme of funny stories about economics professor wears a bit thin really. Its a harder degree than many people who create these stories have. If these $20 bills pay off then do it for real not on top of another risky project of picking up a $50 bill for $45
- bildung 10y ago
  My point was that you cannot deduce unprofitability of wind power from the fact that the place currently runs on diesel. By that reasoning, it makes no sense to install wind power anywhere, because surely in most other cases there were existing power plants, too.
  - ars 10y ago
    > By that reasoning, it makes no sense to install wind power anywhere, because surely in most other cases there were existing power plants, too. The difference is installing wind power for general purpose use, vs installing it specifically for a single project. Installing some new power source specially for one project is a red flag, exactly like he says. If it was a good idea it would be installed for general use.
  - aaron695 10y ago
    I found you point to be, because economists who have done many years of study are stupid and won't pick up $20 because of their many many years of study in the subject would for some reason ditch logic and not pick up a $20 bill. They are stupid people who study at university who reduce brain capacity. Maybe I'm stupid too but, if wind power worked there then that can be the project, no need to add the agriculture on top of it.Why the hell make it harder and use it on only a untested (For viability) growing machine that might make peoples lives better?