4 ms·

Only when there's an offshore to have. I live in the midwest, the nearest oceanfront is over 1000 miles away. And the "gigantic ugly bird-killing machines" arg

by beat 7y ago

Only when there's an offshore to have. I live in the midwest, the nearest oceanfront is over 1000 miles away. And the "gigantic ugly bird-killing machines" arguments are falling apart quickly in the face of the reality of climate change.

sverige 7y ago
Most wind farms are located far from where the electricity generated is used. For example, Facebook is building a wind farm in Nebraska for facilities in California. The loss in transmitting power that far is ridiculous. Why aren't their wind farms built off the coast of northern California? Wind turbines aren't carbon neutral. Better than coal, sure, but it's interesting that the discussion is always around building these things instead of reducing consumption. But no one gets rich off of reducing consumption.
- cr1895 7y ago
  The water gets really deep really fast off the coast of northern California, and floating wind is still in its infancy. For example, the water depth is already 200m deep less than 25 nautical miles offshore San Francisco. For comparison in NYC that's more than 100 nm from the coast.
  - sverige 7y ago
    Why does it need to be 25 nm away? Why not build them closer to shore? A half mile offset from dwellings is considered generous in the Midwest, and the wind is pretty steady along parts of that coast.
    - cr1895 7y ago
      It doesn't necessarily. My point is that it's a more challenging environment than on the east coast, and I'm not aware of any offshore wind projects in planning stages on the west coast. Perhaps there are some (but I wouldn't be surprised if the intention is floating turbines). The offshore turbines tend to dwarf anything installed in the midwest. It's not really a great comparison for proximity. Logistically the west coast is challenging too because at this point the US offshore wind industry is pretty immature, and it's European companies winning the contracts to build and install the foundations. Jacket foundations could be constructed in the Gulf but the larger monopile foundations are probably going to come from Europe. The east coast seems easier to tackle first.
- beat 7y ago
  I'm really surprised no one at Facebook thought about the transmission loss problem before building that way. It seems like a surprising oversight for the countless scientists and experienced engineers involved with the project. Alternately, maybe there's something we don't see in the one-line project description from an internet comment. edit: A quick googling answered that - they're buying the power for a data center in Nebraska, not in California.
  - krobbn 7y ago
    Not as bad as NYC building a 333 mile, $3B transmission line to get hydro power supplied from Canada. Rather than spending $3B to build out wind or other renewable power locally.
    - beat 7y ago
      Again, don't make assumptions that it's stupid, based on little data and no math. First, hydro power is very stable, and Quebec has a surplus, so they could probably get a good price deal for an ongoing relationship. The construction cost is nothing, compared to the ongoing cost. What does that Canadian power cost, vs the cost of wind? They could be looking at tremendous savings over the next few decades. Second, this appears to be a New York City decision, not a New York state decision. Does NYC have enough viable land to build a gigawatt (or more like 3-4gw, considering load variation) of wind? Probably not.
  - IAmEveryone 7y ago
    Transmission losses are also far lower than people keep pretending on the web. This[0] says 3% per 1000km, meaning Nebraska to California could be done at about a 5% loss, which could easily be offset by any number of factors such as lower construction costs, more favourable wind conditions, or availability of land. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current#Advantages https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current#...
    - owenversteeg 7y ago
      I don't think people are "pretending", just that losses are different based on what system you have (not just DC vs AC, but also the voltage, the type of insulator on your cables, the conductor [copper/aluminum, most new stuff is aluminum] and the substations.) Corona losses, specifically, are also strongly affected by the weather! Then you have people writing about it doing incorrect math on some percentage they don't understand from a technical paper. That said, I agree that 5% sounds close for the transmission losses alone (excluding distribution), and 5% could be easily made up, like you said, by many things, like being next to a wind turbine factory/cheaper land/cheaper labor/tax breaks/many things. Interesting note: I found here [0] that silver would be a feasible conductor for HVDC lines if prices were lower. On an example line, it would save $19M/yr but cost $18.5B to build, so 1000 year payback time, which is unrealistic. But! If the price of aluminum increased substantially (for example: say we discover smelting releases mega-carcinogens and it's banned) and the price of silver fell (silver is now 4x as expensive as it was in 2003, so I feel like it could fall fairly precipitously) then we could in theory have silver power lines. One thing to remember, though, is that it's only the "skin" of the conductor made of copper/aluminum/silver - the skin carries 90% of the power, but the bulk of the conductor's mass is the cheap steel core that doesn't need to be as conductive because it only carries 10% of the power. [0] http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/harting1/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/harting1/
- pjc50 7y ago
  For the big users, industrial ones, reducing consumption means either increasing cost or imposing rationing, both of which are likely to be extremely unpopular. Nonetheless there has been some benefit from mandating things like low-energy lightbulbs.
- nate_meurer 7y ago
  No, there is currently no electrical transmission between Nebraska and California, nor will there be in the foreseeable future. There are projects proposed to deliver electricity from Wyoming to California, e.g., Zephyr, Chokecherry, and TransWest, and even those are a ways off. Large distances between source and consumption is common to most resources. It's hardly unique to renewable energy. We need long rail lines for coal generation, gas pipelines for gas generation, same for oil, hugely expensive water projects to get water to where it can be used, etc. In comparison, the combination of transmission line expansion and wind and solar (and soon, storage) is fast becoming the most cost effective way to supply a country with electricity. Bird deaths from wind turbines are just a tiny fraction of those from things like cars, buildings and windows, guy wires, and house cats. I don't like the danger that turbines pose to raptors, but the "bird-killing machines" thing is pretty worn-out bullshit at this point.

by beat 7y ago

sverige 7y ago

Most wind farms are located far from where the electricity generated is used. For example, Facebook is building a wind farm in Nebraska for facilities in California. The loss in transmitting power that far is ridiculous. Why aren't their wind farms built off the coast of northern California? Wind turbines aren't carbon neutral. Better than coal, sure, but it's interesting that the discussion is always around building these things instead of reducing consumption. But no one gets rich off of reducing consumption.

cr1895 7y ago
The water gets really deep really fast off the coast of northern California, and floating wind is still in its infancy. For example, the water depth is already 200m deep less than 25 nautical miles offshore San Francisco. For comparison in NYC that's more than 100 nm from the coast.
- sverige 7y ago
  Why does it need to be 25 nm away? Why not build them closer to shore? A half mile offset from dwellings is considered generous in the Midwest, and the wind is pretty steady along parts of that coast.
  - cr1895 7y ago
    It doesn't necessarily. My point is that it's a more challenging environment than on the east coast, and I'm not aware of any offshore wind projects in planning stages on the west coast. Perhaps there are some (but I wouldn't be surprised if the intention is floating turbines). The offshore turbines tend to dwarf anything installed in the midwest. It's not really a great comparison for proximity. Logistically the west coast is challenging too because at this point the US offshore wind industry is pretty immature, and it's European companies winning the contracts to build and install the foundations. Jacket foundations could be constructed in the Gulf but the larger monopile foundations are probably going to come from Europe. The east coast seems easier to tackle first.
beat 7y ago
I'm really surprised no one at Facebook thought about the transmission loss problem before building that way. It seems like a surprising oversight for the countless scientists and experienced engineers involved with the project. Alternately, maybe there's something we don't see in the one-line project description from an internet comment. edit: A quick googling answered that - they're buying the power for a data center in Nebraska, not in California.
- krobbn 7y ago
  Not as bad as NYC building a 333 mile, $3B transmission line to get hydro power supplied from Canada. Rather than spending $3B to build out wind or other renewable power locally.
  - beat 7y ago
    Again, don't make assumptions that it's stupid, based on little data and no math. First, hydro power is very stable, and Quebec has a surplus, so they could probably get a good price deal for an ongoing relationship. The construction cost is nothing, compared to the ongoing cost. What does that Canadian power cost, vs the cost of wind? They could be looking at tremendous savings over the next few decades. Second, this appears to be a New York City decision, not a New York state decision. Does NYC have enough viable land to build a gigawatt (or more like 3-4gw, considering load variation) of wind? Probably not.
- IAmEveryone 7y ago
  Transmission losses are also far lower than people keep pretending on the web. This[0] says 3% per 1000km, meaning Nebraska to California could be done at about a 5% loss, which could easily be offset by any number of factors such as lower construction costs, more favourable wind conditions, or availability of land. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current#Advantages https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current#...
  - owenversteeg 7y ago
    I don't think people are "pretending", just that losses are different based on what system you have (not just DC vs AC, but also the voltage, the type of insulator on your cables, the conductor [copper/aluminum, most new stuff is aluminum] and the substations.) Corona losses, specifically, are also strongly affected by the weather! Then you have people writing about it doing incorrect math on some percentage they don't understand from a technical paper. That said, I agree that 5% sounds close for the transmission losses alone (excluding distribution), and 5% could be easily made up, like you said, by many things, like being next to a wind turbine factory/cheaper land/cheaper labor/tax breaks/many things. Interesting note: I found here [0] that silver would be a feasible conductor for HVDC lines if prices were lower. On an example line, it would save $19M/yr but cost $18.5B to build, so 1000 year payback time, which is unrealistic. But! If the price of aluminum increased substantially (for example: say we discover smelting releases mega-carcinogens and it's banned) and the price of silver fell (silver is now 4x as expensive as it was in 2003, so I feel like it could fall fairly precipitously) then we could in theory have silver power lines. One thing to remember, though, is that it's only the "skin" of the conductor made of copper/aluminum/silver - the skin carries 90% of the power, but the bulk of the conductor's mass is the cheap steel core that doesn't need to be as conductive because it only carries 10% of the power. [0] http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/harting1/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/harting1/
pjc50 7y ago
For the big users, industrial ones, reducing consumption means either increasing cost or imposing rationing, both of which are likely to be extremely unpopular. Nonetheless there has been some benefit from mandating things like low-energy lightbulbs.
nate_meurer 7y ago
No, there is currently no electrical transmission between Nebraska and California, nor will there be in the foreseeable future. There are projects proposed to deliver electricity from Wyoming to California, e.g., Zephyr, Chokecherry, and TransWest, and even those are a ways off. Large distances between source and consumption is common to most resources. It's hardly unique to renewable energy. We need long rail lines for coal generation, gas pipelines for gas generation, same for oil, hugely expensive water projects to get water to where it can be used, etc. In comparison, the combination of transmission line expansion and wind and solar (and soon, storage) is fast becoming the most cost effective way to supply a country with electricity. Bird deaths from wind turbines are just a tiny fraction of those from things like cars, buildings and windows, guy wires, and house cats. I don't like the danger that turbines pose to raptors, but the "bird-killing machines" thing is pretty worn-out bullshit at this point.