Alternative Energy Confusion

pcnetworx1 writes "New York State is starting to get crunched for electricity. While other states may just say 'pop a couple more coal/oil/natural gas/nuclear power plants down', NY has decided to take the green route. NY State wants to get more power by strategically placing windmill powerplants in upstate NY to help the grid. While getting a dedicated power plant placed on your property for FREE (and being paid $3,000 a year per tower) may sounds good to some Slashdotters, the citizens in upstate NY still need some education in the safety of alternative energy."

Comments

Use less energy

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't folks just use less energy? I mean, come on. Unneeded outside lighting, all the lights on inside, monitors left on all night long at work. People need to conserve energy a lot more than they need to start producing more of it.

Re:Use less energy

[CyricZ]

It's basically a tragedy of the commons situation. Even if it is metered, electricity is so widely available and so relatively cheap that the people there have very little incentive to make efficient use of it.

Of course, that situation may very well change, if they do not get their act together. Then, like any other scarce resource, electricity will become very wisely efficiently allocated by the market.

Re:Use less energy

[WhiteWolf666]

Then you have a problem: the difference between what you want to have and going to get, will only increase in the decades to come, as prices will rise and supplies dwindle.

This is strictly a technological problem, and capitalism is VERY good at solving these kinds of problems.

Fusion is the answer. Maybe not local fusion; maybe we'll never be able to do small scale fusion.

Our planet, however, convieniently orbits a fusion reactor whose output the human mind cannot fathom. We call it the sun; it produces more energy than the species called "Man" knows what to do with.

The only question is how we can harness it. The sun isn't a dam; there isn't a theoretical limit on how much of its energy we can use. Not enough ground space? No problem; Solar Power Satellites to the rescue.

Not enough orbital space? Put 'em in solar orbit, setup relay stations. Efficency isn't an issue; once again, the tap is SO large that the solution is merely a matter of scale, not efficency.

When we are utilizing a non-negligble portion of the sun's energy output, we can talk about energy scarcity. As it is, the only projects we can currently conceive of that would use a non-neglible portion of the sun's energy output would be stellar engineering, on a solar system level, and even then there's more energy than we could possible ever need. We're talking enough energy to literally synthesize vast amounts of matter from energy.

It is an endless font so large that it does NOT fit within the human mind. It's project we can only talk about in engineering terms; its just to big for us to conceive.

Things change

[ThatGeek]

When the Eiffel Tower first went up, people said it was an eyesore and demanded that it be removed. Who wanted to live near a bunch of scaffolding? No doubt, they argued, it would destroy the character of the city and destroy property values. Now we can't imagine the city without it.

I think that once this farm is built, people will discover they like lower taxes and cleaner air. I suspect that the "science" mentioned in the article is mere pseudo-science anyway. I have no idea how a bunch of rotating blades could do as much damage to the human body as the fumes from coal and oil burning. (Note: I assume the human body does not actually come into contact with the blades)

WTF

[Dark Paladin]

Oh. My. Goodness. I have not read about stupidity on such a level since my 7th grade algebra teacher. I read through the issues. Sunlight reflecting? Pulling out a Godwin to compare windmills to Nazi torture tactics? Women having extra periods?

What the hell kind of stupidity is going on here? I used to think that all of the inbreeding was occuring in rural states - but this has got to be the biggest level of stupidity ever. And like my daddy used to say, I can abide a dumb person - that's just an ignorant one.

These people are stupid - which means the inability to learn.

(Sigh.) So, uh, any space up in Canada?

*Scratches Head*

[maynard]

"[...]the citizens in upstate NY still need some education in the safety of alternative energy."

Uhhh, ok... so, I'm all for wind farming. It's cheap and competitive and safe. The NIMBYers (including those in my home state of Massachusetts) need to start considering their alternatives WRT coal, gas, and nuclear. Which would *you* prefer nearby, and how much do you want to pay for electricity? But when I read the term "education" used in this context, it just drives me up the wall. It's as if by being "educated" I would -- of course -- agree with the proposition at hand. IOW: The reframe of using the term "education" in the context of whatever agenda happens to be yours has now become cliché. *shrug*

People can't have their cake and eat it too!

[grqb]

I have to be a bit skeptical about some of these claims about wind turbines:

1. Wind turbines make the same noises as Nazi troops torturing Jews? WTF??
2. Wind turbines causing women to have multiple menstrual cycles a month?

Come on. The real issue is that these people think wind turbines will decrease their property value. They don't have to make up shit like this. Especially if you compare the health effects of what would be built instead of wind turbines...probably coal power plants, which would be far worse health wise.

That being said, wind power is definitely inconsistent. From what I've heard about Denmark, which has the most wind power per capita in the world, most Danes are so untrusting of the quality of their electricity that they wouldn't even think about powering something without a UPS, otherwise they'd fry their electronics. Can any Danes back that up?

To be fair...

[YrWrstNtmr]

Town board members surveyed the population and found that only 5.5 percent of townspeople are against the wind farm, while 58 percent are for it.

Of COURSE the news outlets are going to interview the squeaky wheels. Sells more copies.

I imagine in any population, you can find 5% who are against something, no matter how good an idea it may be.
That 5% will get pushed aside, so that the rest of us can get on with things.

Makes sense for a few MW in a hurry

[dbIII]

Wind power has a really big advantage in the short term over any sort of thermal plant - the lead time is short due to the small unit size.

If you want a big steam turbine or several of them you have to order it years before you need it, and then it takes a long time to build all of the other infrastructure that turns it into a power station. If you go nuclear you have a choice between an expensive white elephant or becoming a pioneer with a full scale version of one of the more promising prototypes out there - so unless you have many years (more than a term of government certainly) you can forget about it.

There are several downsides of wind. With that small unit size the price per MW is high. Maintainance shedules are short (around 1 year vs 5 years for thermal plants) - but once again if you have a lot of small units you can afford to have a few down at any time. Wind isn't reliable, but paired with a thermal or hydro station that can do reasonably quick changes to load (sorry nuclear guys - this is your weak point) and control system like we've had for decades that isn't really a problem. Compare it to a solar water heater - it had a secondary heat source for those times when there isn't enough sun - so you have wind to save on oil or coal fuel costs.

Another quick fix solution is gas turbines. These are usually similar to jet engines driving generators and they aren't much cheaper than wind. Wind scales a bit (you can make big windmills and bring the price per MW down a bit) while photovoltaics don't - double the area of photovoltaics and you only get twice the power - which is why the nuclear crowd like to use it as a comparison because anything else built big enough is going to outstrip it at some point.

All of the above ignores CO2 - and if you consider it then that makes gas turbines less of an option. Nuclear in the short term would only work if someone parks a submarine nearby - everything that uses a large scale to get the efficiency up will require a lot of planning and constuction time.

Always naysayers

[Belseth]

How anyone can claim health problems from windmills is beyond me. People are calling them an eyesore but would they be happier with a coal burning plant next door? More of that anywhere but here BS. Tell you what. Communities that say yes to them get their power for half and your power bills are going to double. Not fair? Wait'll oil starts running out and everyone is paying 4X the current rate. I don't get the eyesore part myself. I lived in Wellington NZ where there was a massive one and it was a tourist attraction and I can't remember anyone complaining about it. Personally I love the ones between LA and Phoenix. The drive is boring and they are a lot more interesting to look at than desert scrub. The placement may not have been ideal but what birds are dying pale to what encrochment and polution cause. Not a perfect solution? Welcome to the real woirld where there are none. It's simply one of the best solutions. Third world countries are embracing the technology. It's sad that we in the oil whoring US of A are whining about asthetics.

Upstate NY

[NitsujTPU]

I'm in upstate NY.

Politics are on the lips of just about every person residing in upstate, as far as I can see. I couldn't go down from my office to get a coffee in Collegetown without overhearing at least 2 or 3 townies discussing politics if I wanted to.

It's also a fertile breeding ground for rather furious debate about such things. The Socialist party has a strong presence here (seriously, and they're proud to be Socialist). The town prints 2 forms of currency to be used in addition to US currency, City Bucks and Ithaca Hours.

So, to hear people talking about building wind farms in upstate is unsurprising. People have been talking about that for quite a while.

The flip side, however, is that you can always hear opponents of such actions. For instance, Cornell University does its cooling with water from the Cayuga River. We're not talking about dumping hot water into the river. Cold water from the Cayuga is pumped through campus buildings to cool them, reducing the amount of energy required by the campus. As far as sustainable, environmentally sound solutions are concenred, it's probably one of the cleanest ways to do it. It's definately pushing the curve a bit and showing that such solutions are viable.

This solution has vocal opponents as well.

To be brief, you can find just about any statement, as long as it's left-wing, that you want in upstate, and, according to people who've lived her longer than I, quite a few right wing ones too if you look hard enough. It's just the nature of upstate. People like politics.

Re:Externalities

[bhiestand]

Less than 42 years, seeing as to how we will be spending less money on repairing the environment and everything else associated with externalities of natural gas, coal, nuclear, etc. An important thing to note: gas and oil prices are only likely to go up, as they are a limited resource, and supply is decreasing.

Also of note is TCO and additional expenses not included in the "oil costs $X/gallon" figure. You can't just pour oil on electric lines and expect to have electricity; even that would require paying someone to pour it on them, transportation costs, etc. The oil (or natural gas, most likely, coal) is paid for, it's shipped to the plant (which requires more oil to ship it), it's unloaded by workers, stored until ready to be used, then burned. Under current labor laws the workers must be paid, and the plant usually belongs to a company which wants to make a profit on its investment (buying the land, building the plant, running the lines, paying the workers, buying the fuel, paying its executives, cleaning up hazardous spills, appeasing the environmentalists). So, in reality, if a barrel of oil costs $62, you're probably paying at least $70 for the energy it produces, a good 30% of which is lost in transmission over the grid.

When we decided to put in our solar system it cost us around $20,000 and should pay for itself in 7 years. It should last at least 20 years without any significant maintenance costs (no batteries, still on the grid). Windmills are essentially the same way in that they're extremely reliable with only a few working parts. Maintenance may be needed occasionally, but it's not like having a team of nuclear technicians running a plant.

What really amazes me is that a good solar system costs $20,000-$30,000, and the average home price where I grew up is about $500,000 with energy prices of a good $0.50/kWh. A builder could easily increase the cost of the home to $550,000, tell the buyers they're going to be saving $400/month on electricity at CURRENT prices, and make a profit. I'm sure they could get some sort of a subsidy from the state and environmentalists to make an even bigger profit.

Re:Legalities will be the downfall of America?

[moonbender]

Burning coal puts more uranium into the atmosphere than nuclear power does.

Here's a bit of trivia. "These studies concluded that the maximum radiation dose to an individual living within 1 km of a modern power plant is equivalent to a minor, perhaps 1 to 5 percent, increase above the radiation from the natural environment. For the average citizen, the radiation dose from coal burning is considerably less." "On this plot, the average population dose attributed to coal burning is included under the consumer products category and is much less than 1 percent of the total dose." "Radioactive elements in coal and fly ash should not be sources of alarm." ( Radioactive Elements in Coal and Fly Ash: Abundance, Forms, and Environmental Significance )

I do agree that this is somewhat of an issue, though, in that essay that pops up everywhere now (even though it's really old), Gabbard does raise some points, especially with respect to long term accumulation of hazardous materials. But I'm not a chemist, this might be a non-issue. I've briefly searched for more recent material, but so far haven't come up with anything.