Wind Power

[Just_A_Guy]

Some cool new designs for wind turbines are in the works.

[pam]

Are these supposed to do the same thing as the wind things we see down by Thanksgiving Point? I still like those. Kind of a modern Don Quixote appeal to me.

[boyando]

Are these supposed to do the same thing as the wind things we see down by Thanksgiving Point? I still like those. Kind of a modern Don Quixote appeal to me.

yes

[boyando]

The questions still remains the same.

How come no one wants to invest in wind farms?

Were do you put a wind farm, were it doesn't make someone or some group, angry?

If it is such a good idea, why does the government feel the need to force it on us?

[Dravin]

/me rumages around in the archives.

Ah, here we go. This thread here (http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/20515-oil-what-if.html) went into the costs of various methods of power generation, baring solar, wind came out as the most expensive. If it costs you more to generate power you have to charge more, people like their power as cheap as possible and my understanding is that those costs are the subsidized costs, if the government didn't have a hand in it wind would be more expensive then the thread is talking about.

[Prodigal_Son]

...if the government didn't have a hand in it wind would be more expensive then the thread is talking about.

Ah, just like that BS we call Ethanol!

[boyando]

Ah, just like that BS we call Ethanol!

If you ask me, ethanol would have had a shot, if the government had not have stepped in.

[Dravin]

If you ask me, ethanol would have had a shot, if the government had not have stepped in.

Not really, my understanding is that ethanol doesn't give you the same or more energy than what you put into it. Wouldn't be a problem if you had a ton of cheap renewable energy and you are essentially converting it to something you can run your car on that'd be fine (think a hydroelectric dam producing hydrogen), the problem is the process is running off fossil fuels.

So (made up numbers to illustrate a point warning), it doesn't make sense to burn 8 gallons of diesel and use up an additional 8 gallons worth of oil from the local power plant (to run the facilities that do that fermenting and the like) when you are only getting 12 gallons of ethanol out of it and ethanol has less potential energy stored in it than diesel or gasoline (IIRC).

This is of course my limited and potentially outdated or outright flawed understanding, if I'm mistaken I'd appreciate correction (or even just real numbers).

Edited July 15, 2009 by Dravin

[Prodigal_Son]

A Cornell University Researcher (David Pimentel) has revealed:

#An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre, according to Pimentel's analysis. Thus, even before corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock costs $1.05 per gallon of ethanol.

# The energy economics get worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented. As many as three distillation steps are needed to separate the 8 percent ethanol from the 92 percent water. Additional treatment and energy are required to produce the 99.8 percent pure ethanol for mixing with gasoline. o Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. "Put another way," Pimentel says, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTU."

# Ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline. "That helps explain why fossil fuels -- not ethanol -- are used to produce ethanol," Pimentel says. "The growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn't afford it, either, if it weren't for government subsidies to artificially lower the price."

# Most economic analyses of corn-to-ethanol production overlook the costs of environmental damages, which Pimentel says should add another 23 cents per gallon. "Corn production in the U.S. erodes soil about 12 times faster than the soil can be reformed, and irrigating corn mines groundwater 25 percent faster than the natural recharge rate of ground water. The environmental system in which corn is being produced is being rapidly degraded. Corn should not be considered a renewable resource for ethanol energy production, especially when human food is being converted into ethanol."

# The approximately $1 billion a year in current federal and state subsidies (mainly to large corporations) for ethanol production are not the only costs to consumers, the Cornell scientist observes. Subsidized corn results in higher prices for meat, milk and eggs because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the United States Increasing ethanol production would further inflate corn prices, Pimentel says, noting: "In addition to paying tax dollars for ethanol subsidies, consumers would be paying significantly higher food prices in the marketplace."

[Dravin]

Thanks that mentions a couple things I had bouncing around in my head. Also BTU makes a lot more sense then gallons when explaining the net energy loss.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm not sure about the economics; but some of the turbines in the article are different in that they can catch energy from updrafts and downdrafts; not just from horizontal air movement.

[Traveler]

If you ask me, ethanol would have had a shot, if the government had not have stepped in.

Not really - Gas can be found, drilled, refined and distributed for less than 35 cents a gallon. The price above that includes taxes (including hidden or corporate and other taxes and profits - divided about 50 50). Ethanol cannot break even until the price reaches $2 per gallon.

One of the problems no one talks about with alternate fuels and power sources is how to replace the earned taxes. Since gas subsidizes everything else – why do we want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?

The most promising clean alternate fuel is nuclear fusion that with the top minds and top funding has not made any progress in over 50 years. But we are going to take less promising possibilities and make them viable within weeks or months so we are not dependent of foreign oil. Are the patents running the insane asylum?

The Traveler

[Moksha]

Wonder if Rush Limbaugh produces enough wind power for a useful purpose.

:)

[john doe]

Wonder if Rush Limbaugh produces enough wind power for a useful purpose.

:)

I wonder if we can spend ourselves into oblivion and hope our great-grandchildren will bail us out.

[Prodigal_Son]

Wonder if Rush Limbaugh produces enough wind power for a useful purpose.

:)

Say what you will about El Rushbo, but he's probably paying for several hundred people's mortgages via taxation. He might even be a major shareholder of GM!

[Aesa]

Wind power is an excellent source of abundant energy. Thanks for posting these new designs, I hadn't seen these and some people I know will be pleased to see them -- though it does appear they are patented (mega-fail).

Energy is nothing but abundant on this planet, so any talk of using fossil fuels is (in the face of these still advancing technologies) utterly ridiculous.

[Traveler]

Wind power is an excellent source of abundant energy. Thanks for posting these new designs, I hadn't seen these and some people I know will be pleased to see them -- though it does appear they are patented (mega-fail).

Energy is nothing but abundant on this planet, so any talk of using fossil fuels is (in the face of these still advancing technologies) utterly ridiculous.

Your posts are grossly misleading. As far back as the 60’s the hippy movement touted alternate energy for living. The “Whole Earth Catalog” outlined several methods of building wind turbines as well as other sources. Some of the designs are amazingly efficient. Now, 50 years later, the one thing we have learned is that the so-called alternate energy sources are not reliable.

In a modern society utilizing supply chain technologies sporadic energy sources are economic and systematic suicide forcing those that rely on such sources into failed third world situations.

Just because there is energy does not mean that it can be successfully utilized. Nuclear fusion reactions on the sun create EMP with enough electrical energy transmitted directly to earth to satisfy 600,000 times as much as our current entire energy consumption – as of now we do not use a single watt from that source. This is 100% clean electrical environmental safe power – more than we could ever use all going to waste. So should we spend billions of dollars to convert this power? What could be more promising? Well there are just two small little problems with this energy source. But we can ignore the problem and tell the world to spend billions to convert to this source.

The reason that certain sources have not been exploited is because in the final analysis no one knows how to actually make it work better than present solutions. When someone can demonstrate a viable solution – it will not require government intervention to get it going and anyone that does not convert will soon be as left behind as our early primate relatives that did not covert to fire.

The Traveler

[boyando]

Not really - Gas can be found, drilled, refined and distributed for less than 35 cents a gallon. The price above that includes taxes (including hidden or corporate and other taxes and profits - divided about 50 50). Ethanol cannot break even until the price reaches $2 per gallon.

One of the problems no one talks about with alternate fuels and power sources is how to replace the earned taxes. Since gas subsidizes everything else – why do we want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?

The most promising clean alternate fuel is nuclear fusion that with the top minds and top funding has not made any progress in over 50 years. But we are going to take less promising possibilities and make them viable within weeks or months so we are not dependent of foreign oil. Are the patents running the insane asylum?

The Traveler

Although I agree that Fusion is a better solution for our energy problems, I like the sound of the internal combustion engine. That is the fault of an old car guy. Many drag race cars use ethanol, not ethanol mix, to make big horsepower. Less fuel per horsepower equals more miles per gallon.

The problem with government supported ethanol is two fold. One, they decided to use corn, or in other words, whiskey.

I had a friend who has land in Iowa. The land was used as pasture with little revenue. As soon as the government announced that they were going to use corn two make ethanol, many farmers hit him up to farm this land, too grow corn. The price of corn went trough the roof.

Second, corn is not the easiest source to get ethanol. Many have figured out how to get ethanol from swamp weeds but can not compete with government programs.

It takes nine tenths of a gallon of oil products, gas or diesel, to make one gallon of ethanol from corn. That only make since if you are making whiskey to drink.

Not a chance I'm going to get my wish, and I cant find in the Word of Wisdom were you can use whiskey to run your car.

[MarginOfError]

There are also some environmental impacts that result from wind farms going up. They do have a slight impact on ecosystems and climate patterns. These impacts can be avoided by not putting too many windmills really close together, but that's also when the wind farm is most productive. It's another issue to try and balance.

While I believe that we need to switch to some form of alternative energy, I'm not yet convinced we're completely ready to make the switch. I think that switch is probably still 12 - 15 years away (unless we decide to switch to nuclear power).

My personal opinion is that it would be much more effective to try to put either a small windmill or a solar panel on every home that would just generate enough energy to run the refrigerator. That would be a huge reduction of "unnatural" energy. Unfortunately, the technology for that is still prohibitively expensive for the typical homeowner. As with most things, there are no easy solutions.

[Aesa]

Your posts are grossly misleading. As far back as the 60’s the hippy movement touted alternate energy for living. The “Whole Earth Catalog” outlined several methods of building wind turbines as well as other sources. Some of the designs are amazingly efficient. Now, 50 years later, the one thing we have learned is that the so-called alternate energy sources are not reliable.

In a modern society utilizing supply chain technologies sporadic energy sources are economic and systematic suicide forcing those that rely on such sources into failed third world situations.

Just because there is energy does not mean that it can be successfully utilized. Nuclear fusion reactions on the sun create EMP with enough electrical energy transmitted directly to earth to satisfy 600,000 times as much as our current entire energy consumption – as of now we do not use a single watt from that source. This is 100% clean electrical environmental safe power – more than we could ever use all going to waste. So should we spend billions of dollars to convert this power? What could be more promising? Well there are just two small little problems with this energy source. But we can ignore the problem and tell the world to spend billions to convert to this source.

The reason that certain sources have not been exploited is because in the final analysis no one knows how to actually make it work better than present solutions. When someone can demonstrate a viable solution – it will not require government intervention to get it going and anyone that does not convert will soon be as left behind as our early primate relatives that did not covert to fire.

The Traveler

The reality is that we don't use abundant energies because there is much less potential for profit, because they're so abundant.

Some examples:

The US Department of Energy has admitted that if wind was harnessed officially in only three states of America, that alone could power the entire nation? Why isn't that happening? Because it'd destroy a huge energy industry, that uses fossil fuels and maintains huge market share because of the wide opportunity for profits in using fossil fuels -- as opposed to something that could make energy available to every person on the planet with ease.

The Michigan Institute of Technology, through an extensive study, has concluded that if Geothermal Energy were properly harnessed that it could power the entire planet with ease -- with the Earth's heat being constantly regenerated, and not damaged as in the earlier geothermal plants -- without any thought of energy shortage.

Your post above reads like the political rhetoric, the same stuff that allows for patents on battery technology which if it weren't patented could be advanced to power our cars for great distances. The old arguments to try and hold back true efficiency, because it's downright detrimental to the bottom-line (and I've only used two of many abundant energy examples). Energy is nothing but abundant on this planet, and the only place there is a shortage is in the brains of our elected leaders.

We could have energy abundance right now, if we were not held back by this profit-structure. A great example of this paralysing of technology is the introduction of hydrogen power, which establishment enterprises want to use because they can maintain the same infrastructure. Yet of ofcourse, it doesn't matter that it's totally inefficient and generally dangerous! Not at all!

[Dravin]

The reality is that we don't use abundant energies because there is much less potential for profit, because they're so abundant.

No the reason there is less potential for profit is because those oh so abundant energy sources are more expensive to harvest compared to fossil fuel, as this dynamic changes you'll see fossil fuels being the more expensive to utilize and wind less expensive and there will be more potential profit from renewable energy even though the abundance of wind hasn't changed any and the abundance of fossil fuels certainly wouldn't have grown. Gold can fall from the sky, It'd still be expensive no matter the abundance if it cost $1000 an ounce to pick up.

How much of something is only part of the equation, how much it costs to get at it is the other (and how much it takes to get it to the people who want it is still another).

Why isn't that happening?

My guess is because its more expensive than fossil fuels even when subsidized, remember coal is a fossil fuel and coal is cheap compared to wind. Also, you can convert an oil fired plant to coal, you can't really convert it to wind (though you can replace it). There are many arguments for things like Solar or Wind energy, that cost wise (monetary) its cheaper or the same cost oil or even better coal isn't one of them, and until that changes or the costs are hidden (subsidies) you aren't going to see a massive switch to those alternative energy sources.

Yes we know you don't care about the various costs involved in various methods of power generation, however you live in a world that does.

[Traveler]

The reality is that we don't use abundant energies because there is much less potential for profit, because they're so abundant.

Some examples:

The US Department of Energy has admitted that if wind was harnessed officially in only three states of America, that alone could power the entire nation? Why isn't that happening? Because it'd destroy a huge energy industry, that uses fossil fuels and maintains huge market share because of the wide opportunity for profits in using fossil fuels -- as opposed to something that could make energy available to every person on the planet with ease.

The Michigan Institute of Technology, through an extensive study, has concluded that if Geothermal Energy were properly harnessed that it could power the entire planet with ease -- with the Earth's heat being constantly regenerated, and not damaged as in the earlier geothermal plants -- without any thought of energy shortage.

Your post above reads like the political rhetoric, the same stuff that allows for patents on battery technology which if it weren't patented could be advanced to power our cars for great distances. The old arguments to try and hold back true efficiency, because it's downright detrimental to the bottom-line (and I've only used two of many abundant energy examples). Energy is nothing but abundant on this planet, and the only place there is a shortage is in the brains of our elected leaders.

We could have energy abundance right now, if we were not held back by this profit-structure. A great example of this paralysing of technology is the introduction of hydrogen power, which establishment enterprises want to use because they can maintain the same infrastructure. Yet of ofcourse, it doesn't matter that it's totally inefficient and generally dangerous! Not at all!

You are wrong on many accounts.

1. A patent only last for 14 years – I know because I had one.

2. I have been personally involved in alternate energy sources for over 30 years. I was involved in hydrogen power in the 70’s. I have been directly involved in studies and I know why hydrogen cannot compete with fossil fuel. But if we ever get hydrogen fusion to work a byproduct is hydrogen gas that could be generated cheaply and used commercially – in addition electrical power is a direct byproduct as well as pure water. Mostly we need H3 which has a good ratio in sea water. There are areas where a hydrogen plant could be set up using sea water, the electrical and hydrogen exported and the fresh water used in sandy areas like the Sarah to create giant hydroponic gardens to grow the world’s food. Great idea as soon as we can develop sustainable hydrogen fusion.

3. Most of my life I have commuted to work by bicycle – I am convinced that if just 25% of the population used this method we would have a health increase that would do more than any government sponsored health plan as well as cause an economic boom from energy savings.

4. Wind power is not new technology. We have been using wind power for well over 500 years and never at any point has fossil fuel put wind power completely out of business. Every effort to utilize wind power on a large scale since the industrial revolution has gone bankrupt – The reason is that the wind is not reliable. You keep missing the operative word (UNRELIABLE). This is not politics but pure science. Something that many idealists like you seems to want to ignore. Contrary to your insinuation there is not a corporate conspiracy – Without large contributions of your tax dollars General Electric would have gone bankrupt with their investments in wind power. The problem is that wind is so unreliable that a second source for backup energy must be installed for when wind power fails. The cost of two sources of power is prohibitive compared to just one in the first place. Yes I have been involved in a solution for this in that energy can be stored in super lightweight flywheels that operate in a vacuum that operated at extremely high rpm. They work wonderfully and will store up to a week of power but size is a problem because the largest flywheel that works well is only enough for about half a single house. Sizing is a big problem – pun intended.

5. Hydrogen gas is not dangerous (any more that gasoline) when stored as a hydride.

6. Currently the best solar power uses a mix of silicon and ceramic based systems that respond to different wavelengths in a single photo electric cell doubling the efficiency but right now these are quite expensive. We have pushed the limits and doubled the efficiency with this technology to about 14 to 15 percent. This is relatively new and Germany is pushing this technology but there is a drawback. Most do not want to invest in this technology because a new technology is on the horizon with what are called nanotubes. These are in essence “Bucky balls” that have been strung out in strings and test show that photo electrical cells using nanotubes could be over 50 percent efficient and cost much less (as much as a 3rd) than the combined silicon and ceramic based systems. Thus the best photo electric cells sit on the shelf without willing buyers. The problem with nanotubes is that we do not know yet how to mass produce them.

7. The final thing that you do not understand is that media reporters are not scientist and cannot report any scientific research with any kind or reliably – they tend to be political and with such an agenda they tend to get the simple basic facts wrong. Thus there is more invalid information available than scientific understanding. Couple this with the fact the most scientific research is funded by government – which suddenly makes such efforts more political than scientific because government is not result based but has a political bias that if not met the funding ends. Direct government funded research will not and cannot solve our energy problems – let alone even report what is going on with any accuracy – your politically charged arguments and opinions are my proof of this point.

The Traveler

[Aesa]

You absolutely ignored my points on the abundance on geothermal energy (and ofcourse I could provide many other examples) -- wind power is only a piece of the puzzle. And just because you have worked in an inefficient environment (ref post above), doesn't mean that the source is.

[Traveler]

You absolutely ignored my points on the abundance on geothermal energy (and ofcourse I could provide many other examples) -- wind power is only a piece of the puzzle. And just because you have worked in an inefficient environment (ref post above), doesn't mean that the source is.

I am not saying that there is not an abundance of any kind of energy - I am simply saying there are no successful large scale uses of any energy source you are betting the farm on.

Just so you know - I am and engineering consultant with expertise in automation and robotics in manufacturing environments. I do not work for a single corporation but work to apply successful manufacturing techniques to large scale and marketable products. I have worked with the semiconductor, automotive, photo electrical cell manufacturing, paper production among other profitable and successful enterprises.

I would dearly love to see an efficient use of abundant sources of energy that is clean and environmentally friendly – but despite all the false propaganda there are currently no viable solutions. The hand waving and saying science can do what it has not done is nothing more than propaganda. All I am asking is that you root yourself in reality. Please!!

BTW many years ago I worked with the defense department in exploring geothermal energy. Geothermal sources tend to be rather explosive (Mt. Saint Helens). I also worked on a study of high energy electrical “rivers” the flow through the earth’s crust. You are right that there are abundant sources of energy all over the place – it is just hard to get.

I can tell you of a beach in Oregon with several million dollars of gold mixed in with the sand. All someone has to do is figure out how to separate the sand from the gold. Many people have figured out how to do this on a small scale and have made themselves a few hundred or even thousand dollars – but the bottom line is that they all fail when attempting to go into production and get rich. Saying you have a solution and selling shares is a felony unless it really works – but making energy claims and collecting tax dollars make you a hero in certain political circles.

Just because something is available does not mean that we can use it yet. Nothing currently is as clean, reliable and economical as fossil fuels. Picking just one or two of the three and claiming a solution is deceptive and preys upon the naive.

All that I am saying is there is no such animal that exist that can replace fossil fuels and be as clean, as reliable and as economical and if you bet the farm you will end up bankrupt – even if you are the government. If there is a real exception in the last 100 years let’s see this exception. Ideas do not count – they have to be workable solutions that can be replicated.

The Traveler

[boyando]

Traveler,

I am sorry to hear about your love for bicycles. Sure if we all road a bike to work, we would be thiner, but when ever I think about riding a bike, I remember my years on my mission and I go find my car keys.