Slashdot Mirror
Green Energy Almost Cost-Competitive with Fossil Fuels
js7a writes "As reported in the Houston Chronicle, the sharply rising cost of natural gas and other fossil fuels has caused the cost of renewable energy to finally reach the price of nonrenewables. However, wind still has some catching up to do: 'a 10 percent wind- and 90 percent water-generated mix is about $9 per month less expensive than the 100 percent wind plan.' As more wind generation and grid transmission capacity is built, wind will eventually become more competitive than hydroelectric, but hydro and other sources will be required to balance grid demand in calm areas. Slashdot has been following this trend."
My understanding is that most of your objections have been dealt with by using different blade configurations such that you the same power from more slowly-turning blades.
As to being unsightly, that's very subjective.
If I had the money I would do it too!
Gee, maybe because a broken solar panel doesn't decimate the land for hundreds of miles and render it uninhabitable for hundreds of years?
Maybe?
Maybe because when the sun goes down, you don't have a pile of lethal garbage that can kill you for thousands of years left over?
Maybe?
Naaaaaah. fucking hippies, they just don't get it, do they.
This is great news! California has had an option to select renewable for some time.
BUT!
Being the cynic (skeptic?) I am, we need to be super-careful that the energy is what the distributors claim it is. For example, look at the organic labelling fiasco: food producers lobbied to reduce the standards of "organic" to include "some" organic procedures. They are not the same metrics that constitute "California Organic". As a result, there are misleading standards for organic, which can result in people buying products that could potentially bypass all that is good about organic processing.
Same goes for the Green-ergy.
Hopefully thsi will be monitored properly, so that when someone requests renewable energy, they don't get an earload marketingspeak "plants and animals die and become coal and oil, therefore coal and oil are nature's renewable resources!!!"
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Wind Power and Temperature Change
I think, we had the Altamont topic
topic before. The point was, Altamont farm is flawed. Others do not show such abnormal high mortalities. However, birds die from wind farms, but they die more often from collisions window panes, or cats, or cars, etc. than from wind farms.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
Gee, maybe because a broken solar panel doesn't decimate the land for hundreds of miles and render it uninhabitable for hundreds of years?
Neither does a low-radioactivity nuclear battery.
Maybe because when the sun goes down, you don't have a pile of lethal garbage that can kill you for thousands of years left over?
With a NASA style thermocouple battery, when the power runs out (after 20-30 years, depending on half-life of the element involved) the only thing left over is a lump of lead the size of a soup can- which can then be recycled into a new nuclear battery. So this argument simply doesn't apply to all forms of nuclear power.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Yah, cause burning garbage has NO effect on the environment, right? :P
Think about some of the stuff sitting in those dump sites, and then think about what it would be like to burn those things individually. Then think about stacking them all up, let them ferment for a few years, and THEN burn them all. Wheeeew... you think people living close to dumps have an issue NOW?
Yes, and I suppose that "Earth Crash Earth Spirit" is an "OBJECTIVE" source too.
n s. pdf
Perhaps you should do some more research before you start blasting someone who is ESSENTIALLY correct in their statement. The American Birds Conservancy (ABC) has some pretty good data regarding wind generation facilities:
http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/windpolicy.htm
And another study:
http://www.nationalwind.org/pubs/avian_collisio
And I would agree... Wind turbines are much more fun to look at than coal plant smoke stacks.
It's surprising, or maybe not actually, that articles such as the Houston Chronicle piece referenced by the OP completely ignore the most obvious approaches to "green" energy use. Insulation of every building, passive solar heating and electricity generation on every rooftop where it's feasible, more public transportation, and a crash program to incentivize use of fuel efficient cars would go a long way to mitigate if not solve the energy problem. It's not sexy but it works.
Up front costs may be higher for solar and other alternative and supplemental systems, but long term the payoff is there. You have to be willing to wait 10-15 years for your solar power array to pay for itself and then some.
Americans have a centralized power mindset; it's difficult to imagine a power plant on every block, or solar and fuel cells in every house. Yet, that's much more in keeping with the American tradition of pioneer self-reliance.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
Lets dispel that "bird killer" myth once again with some actual numbers.
Remember, windows are the number one man-made bird killer. Where's the anti-window lobby when you need it? Heck, the very power lines that take the power away from the wind turbines are more likely to kill birds than the turbines themselves.
The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
[quote]Boston Globe: Nov. 8, 2004.
A long-awaited federal report on the proposed wind farm in Nantucket Sound says the project would do little or no harm to fish, birds, and the surrounding seafloor, and would not drive down local property values -- all key findings as Cape Wind Associates seeks final approval to start construction next year.
The 4,000-page draft environmental impact statement by the Army Corps of Engineers will be formally released tomorrow. But a detailed 26-page executive summary obtained by the Globe seems to undercut opponents' arguments that the 130-turbine wind farm would cause deep, lasting damage to the environment.
Specifically, the draft says the estimated 420-foot-tall turbines could kill as many as 364 birds per year -- about one a day -- but notes that number is unlikely to affect endangered species or specific populations of birds. In predicting the project's impact on shellfish and fish populations -- a concern of environmentalists as well as fishermen -- the report says any effects would probably be felt only during construction.[/quote]
I can't say I've done some detailed search on this, but I'm pretty suspicious of the bird deaths specifically because VIRTUALLY EVERY article critisizing bird deaths brings up Altamont Pass, which is only one of many wind farms across the country/world. Moreover, it uses old, outdated turbines that spin much faster than modern turbines.
Coal kills a lot of birds too. There is no free energy source -- in financial or environmental effects.
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
Have you ever seen a mountaintop removal/valley fill mine? We've lost over a thousand miles of streams already. RIP
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
Damn, man, what are you gonna replace plastic with?
.are you ready for it?
With. .
Plastic!
Petroleum isn't the only source of plant based hydrocarbons. There just happen to be a lot of partially processed plant based hydrocarbons lying around for the taking at the moment.
Not that we could grow enough plants to meet our current demands, let alone our extrapolated future demands, but that's a somewhat different issue.
KFG
It's an uncounted negative externality.
Well, a windy part of the country will get you around 5MW per square kilometer. As tech improves, this will as well. In 2001, the US used 3.602 billion MWh of power, which if we assume constant use (more on this later), would imply ~400,000 MW power generation. That would be 80,000 square kilometers (~31,000 square miles). The US, with its 3.6 million square miles of land, would need to use roughly 2% of its land to generate its power needs - the best areas being little used badlands, mountainous regions, and low-cost midwest farmland. The land underneath wind farms can generally be used for farming, too (if it was initially usable).
Now, realistically it's not feasable to use wind power for all of the US - it works great in some parts, but not so well in others.
To handle the non-constant-use issue, hydro power is often proposed. Dams can control the amount of water that they release, so during low-wind or high demand times, they can make up the difference. Other proposals often involve things like surplus capacity fuel generation (hydrogen, etc), which is then used in power-shortage conditions or sold if not needed.
Nobody wants wind power? The heck nobody wants it! I do, and I'm sure many other posters here do too. I don't find it ugly - I think the turbines look quite nice.
The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
Each outdoor cat probably kills an average of 50+ birds a year, though. Ask someone with birdfeeders. Cats are truly little sadistic monsters. But also cute and fluffy!
i rds.htm
This site says that in WI alone cats kill 217 million birds a year: http://www.lcshelter.com/cat%20predation%20on%20b
Anyone looking for a recent, comprehensive evaluation of wind power should look at the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Cape Wind project.
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
Hydrogen as an energy source... ??
Maybe I am missing something, but the fact that hydrogen combustion is very
efficient its great for rockets or cars, that are weight concerned, but that does not mean it is an energy _source_.
When people say "If we could find a cheap way to extract hydrogen..." well, sorry,
but that's the problem. Hydrogen can serve to store energy efficiently, but there is
no free hydrogen on earth, so it is not an energy _source_.
Its basic thermodynamics, yep, you get a lot from combining hydrogen with oxygen,
but if we do not have free hydrogen we will _never_ have but the difference between
what we obtain minus the energy required to get the hydrogen in the first place.
Now, this is not a technological limitation, it's a law of physics.
The reason why we all love oil its because, although dirty and smelly, its there
underground for you to pump it. Now, if there was free hydrogen underground....
Then it would be an energy source.
My two cents.
Health problems caused by air pollution kill more people every year than terrorism ever has. Maybe you, personally, haven't died yet, but thousands of people die every year due to various lung diseases aggravated by pollution. Many more suffer severe asthma and allergies. It's not the immediate end of the world, but pollution is definitely a problem.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Well, you're certainly not known for your education system. Not all rain-forests are jungles and almost 50% of all Costal Temperate Rain Forests in the world are in California.
More info (source):
sin(6cos(r)+5A)
Actually, the reason hurricanes lose energy over land is the same reason they gain energy at sea, they are gigantic heat engines. Hurricanes form when an area of low pressure and wind shear is over waters above 80 F. The low pressure causes the hot, humid air from the ocean to converge together, which pushes it high into the atmosphere and causes thunderstorms. The horrific winds of hurricanes are caused by the coriolis force acting upon the extreme convergance of air. Trees and small things less than 500 ft would mainly affect the wind gust speed by compressing and deflecting the air around (although I'm not sure what a wind farm would do). Mountains however would rip apart a hurricane. Hurricanes lose energy whenever they don't have a nice fuel supply, which is why hurricanes, even though they form in the Pacific, never hit California with it's 70 F waters. More info over at the NOAA.
E pluribus unum
First off, each of us (yes, including me) live our lives wrong. We also tend to live in (and work in) buildings designed wrong. Now, both of these statements are pretty bold - but both are very true.
How much do you throw away? What do you throw away? How much do you recycle? How much do you recycle? How much do you reuse, and what do you reuse? These are the key questions, and the answers are the key to free energy.
Want your eyes opened? Take a look around your neighborhood on trash day. If your city has such a program, especially take a look on "bulk pickup" day. What do you see? What are people literally paying to have hauled away and buried?
I have seen bikes, refrigerators, computers, car parts, engines, dishwashers, cut up trees, wood, etc. All of these items took a lot of energy to make. Several of them could still work just perfectly, if we would only take the time to fix them. Those that can't be fixed, still could be put to other uses. The wood and the cut up trees could be further processed for the raw materials, or used as simple fuel. Water heaters could become storage tanks for solar heated water. That old window could become the front to a solar collector panel. That old engine and car alternator could become a cheap and easy to build power generation system (heh - heat the scrap wood in that old 55 gallon drum using a solar panel made from busted mirrors epoxied onto an old K-band sat dish, drive off the wood gas, power the engine with that (or cook with it), the stuff left over - charcoal for a barbeque!). All of this junk - going to waste.
Go to a landfill (even better, go to one that handles construction scrap only) - watch as thousands of tons per day of scrap wood, steel, aluminum, sand, dirt, concrete, etc - get buried in huge piles! All of this could be used and reused! How many times have you seen busted up concrete (or broken brick and block) being thrown away? Why not build a wall or a living structure out of it? What about that dirt - maybe a rammed earth house, perhaps? The wood, the steel - all of that has obvious uses. Why are we throwing it away?
As far as our houses and buildings are concerned - we build all of these wrong. We build them as energy wasting monstrosities. A monolithic dome house, or a thick-walled earthship-style house - will be much more energy efficient in the long run than a stick-frame constructed house. Build it out of scrap and throwaway items, and it becomes even cheaper. Build in skylights for daytime lighting. Collect rainwater in tanks to use for the garden and yard instead of the tap. Collect your greywater runoff as well. Collect your black water runoff into a methane digester system to produce fuel. Heat your house with solar panels made from scrap plywood, windows, and 2x4s. Install LED lighting for nighttime use. Build a wind generator using old automobile brake rotors and rare-earth magnets. Build a solar oven and slow cook your food.
The answers are endless, and so are the possibilities. None of this is fiction, or dreamwork. Many people have done this and are doing it everyday. There are tons of accounts on the internet - most show "how-to" methods. Want to start? Start by building a simple solar box oven, and cook some chili or rice in it. You can easily build one using cardboard boxes, a scrap piece of glass, and newspaper for insulation. For the glass, go to a glass shop and ask - many times they have odd sizes or whatnot they can't sell, and will happily give them to you. Or, go to Lowes, to the glass cutting area - many times they will have scrap glass (and acrylic, too) that they will give away for the asking. Or, find an oven door and take the tempered glass from it (or how about an old refrigerator - use an old glass shelf). There are tons of recipies online for solar ovens - give it a shot (yes, it will work in the wintertime - you just need sun). I guarantee you will be pleased. You will then know that it is possible to get free energy. There are tons of other ways (I know of several to get free cooling in the summertime!). Think about it, learn about it, and realize what you are missing!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Yes. It's so helpful, let's talk about it a little more...
Terrawatt/years! There's a unit of measurement you don't see every day. It's probably a really useful unit of measurement, too, so let's examine it.
All of the nuclear plants, combined, in the US have a peak output of 99 gigawatts. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_rea
So how many windmills would it take to equal the 99 gigawatts of peak output from our nuclear plants? GE has a 1.5 megawatt wind turbine now. You'd need 66000 windmills to get an equal peak amount of output from those wind turbines. Several very large windfarms in each state.
That turns out to be, well, completely wrong. The output of the latest turbines has really jumped, though, so we'll forgive you. If I've calculated this right, you were only off by a factor of about... fifteen thousand.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
California was looking into a bill like that. Read this article. You can google it for more info.
i think we need to bring our gas prices in line with the rest of the world. (1.10 euro/liter last time i was in france. about $5 per gallon with the exchange rate at the time) then we'd really see some progress.
:-)
There's one problem with your idea: The USA is so large physically that the high price of petrol is NOT a good idea. You're forgetting that Europe has many excellent alternatives to driving a car, especially their high-speed rail networks built at mostly government expense.
For the USA, a better solution is probably to impose varying levels of excise tax on an automobile based on the EPA fuel mileage test of the vehicle. That will encourage automakers to come up with improvements to petrol-fuelled engines and to implement clean-burning turbodiesel engines widely, just like Europe is doing right now. Fortunately, that does not mean lower-powered vehicles like it was in the past; the Mercedes-Benz E320 CDI with a turbodiesel engine gets fuel efficiency more akin to a Honda Civic sedan but actually has MORE accelerating power than the E320 with the petrol-fuelled engine!