Fifteen Bad Things with Windpower–and Three Reasons Why

[ElNono]

I know enough that this capacity compensation has limits. My concern is if/when those limits are surpassed.

Please stop changing the goalpost.

Please don't run away from your own claims.

Power grids, much like any other network that requires substantial uptime, are designed with redundancy in place from the get go. You bring up stuff that has been dealt with a long time ago.

No engineer would ever design a grid with a majority of unreliable power sources without some sort of redundancy system. This is basic stuff.
If that's what you're scared of, then sleep easy. We'll never have such a grid.

[ElNono]

So we both agree Lumpy is wrong.

I'd like to hear Lumpy first.

[Wild Cobra]

If that's not the argument at hand, why did you bring it up? After all I was responding to one of your claims/theories...
Which have the underlying premise that we start using and relying on wind a great deal. Far more than we do today.

If we have to have to build redundant power for something that can be unpredictable, then why build it at all?

[LnGrrrR]

Which have the underlying premise that we start using and relying on wind a great deal. Far more than we do today.

If we have to have to build redundant power for something that can be unpredictable, then why build it at all?

I think there's a problem with your logic; you're assuming that we replace gas power (which you believe/assume/know/whatever is more reliable) with wind power, whereas the point most seem to be making is to call for MORE windpower to augment our power generation.

We can keep a baseline of gas generation for reliability, and use solar/wind to add to our power requirements more cleanly than adding more gas.

[Wild Cobra]

I think there's a problem with your logic; you're assuming that we replace gas power (which you believe/assume/know/whatever is more reliable) with wind power, whereas the point most seem to be making is to call for MORE windpower to augment our power generation.

We can keep a baseline of gas generation for reliability, and use solar/wind to add to our power requirements more cleanly than adding more gas.

At the expense of building two power plants instead of one, and subsidizing the less cost effective one.

Real good accounting practices.

Where is my logic failing me?

[ElNono]

Which have the underlying premise that we start using and relying on wind a great deal. Far more than we do today.

Using and relying are two completely different things.

You could use a cheaper/cleaner/more effective method of harvesting energy, even if unreliable. It reduces the need for other sources to create the same energy. Now, reducing doesn't imply replacing.


If we have to have to build redundant power for something that can be unpredictable, then why build it at all?

Because it's cost effective for them to do so. If harvesting from wind/solar is more efficient for them as a complementary power source, then why wouldn't they do it?

That said, it doesn't mean that they would switch to those as reliable power source. That's a completely inane proposition.

[ElNono]

Gas might be more cost-effective now in certain circumstances, but in the long run it's debatable. There's also the fact that perhaps increasing the current gas generation would require certain expenses that can simply be more-cost effective to do with wind/solar (IE: increasing only peak-time, increasing on a smaller scale than a full blown new gas plant, etc)

[LnGrrrR]

At the expense of building two power plants instead of one, and subsidizing the less cost effective one.

Real good accounting practices.

Where is my logic failing me?

Depends on what your timeframe is, and your determination of cost. The two big benefits of wind, which are why it has proponents are:

Wind is essentially an eternal power source (as long as your equipment is working), coal/fossils obviously aren't

Wind is (for the purposes of this convo) cleaner, introducing less pollution

[LnGrrrR]

An added bonus is that we don't have to worry about the governments of foreign countries producing windpower for us. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

Depends on what your timeframe is, and your determination of cost. The two big benefits of wind, which are why it has proponents are:

Wind is essentially an eternal power source (as long as your equipment is working), coal/fossils obviously aren't

Wind is (for the purposes of this convo) cleaner, introducing less pollution
I don't debate against that. My problem referring to those items is that the industry will use such technologies without subsidies when they become cost effective, and natural gas has little emissions to work about.

We shouldn't be wasting money.

[MannyIsGod]

For someone who constantly sings the praises of the free market you seemed to be hell bent on stopping wind power when the free market wants to go in that direction.

Its sad how you keep trying to manipulate either the argument or facts in order to suit your desires.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't debate against that. My problem referring to those items is that the industry will use such technologies without subsidies when they become cost effective, and natural gas has little emissions to work about.

We shouldn't be wasting money.

My rebuttal would be that, if alt power is too expensive, then it is likely that gas companies would continue to use gas until it became too expensive to use. But by that time we realized we were close to tapping out gas reserves, it would be too late to create these alternative forms of energy fast enough (let alone troubleshooting issues related to them) to supply the power grid.

If anything, one could classify that as a national security issue. Developing and diversifying in alternate methods of energy creation in this case can be seen as a way to provide power in the case of a crisis. Government R&D could also lead to lowered costs for technology to power this, and could be run much like DARPA projects, where they hold contests to determine new contracts.

[DarrinS]

I wonder how much carbon it takes to truck all those blades, individually, across Texas?

[LnGrrrR]

I wonder how much carbon it takes to truck all those blades, individually, across Texas?

Probably as much as it takes to pull up barrels of gas all over the world and transport them here. :p

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I initially said:


Again what does this have to do with storage. They run 95% of the time and apparently you do not understand how AC power works. Fine its a supplement that does not mean in that 5% that they are down they have to have storage to make up for it.

Its not like natural gas and coal plants are up 100% of the time either and the ability to store power that can be translated back to the generator in gas and coal plants works either either. Its stored as rotational motion and friction eats up the power very very quickly. Your argument is baseless.

One thing that I know for certain is that I know a lot more about how the infrastructure actually works better than you do.

before you responded:


I understand AC power, and have worked with rotary UPS. Those things do not store rotational power.

What a fucking chump.


I was saying wind mills did not store rotational power like a Rotary UPS does. You misunderstood.

As for the rest of your dribble...

Show me a capacitor rated in farads. They are generally rated in micro-farads and below.

You show yourself unknowledgeable again. You make too many foolish assumptions.

As for voltage, 120/240 is nominal. It varies somewhat. How many times you going to expose your ass?


And for domestic one rail in the breaker is 110 and two is 220 @ 60hz. Every monkey knows that.

http://www.sonicelectronix.com/cat_i200_1-farad-capacitors.html

Weeeee......... The machines you change parts on are in the order of e-6 but when you get down to the level of microprocessors they get down to the order as low as e-12. That would be a picofarad.

The only thing being exposed is your myopic knowledge, parts changer.

[ElNono]

LOL... I missed the farad talk...

You can actually get EDLC capacitors with up to 5,000 farad capacity these days...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/Maxwell_MC_and_BC_ultracapacitor_cells_and_modules .jpg/800px-Maxwell_MC_and_BC_ultracapacitor_cells_and_modules .jpg

[MannyIsGod]

No explanation on how temperature inversions can cause winds to suddenly stop, WC?

[RandomGuy]

I wonder how much carbon it takes to truck all those blades, individually, across Texas?

Quite a fair amount. But it is a one time cost.

Now answer this question:

How much carbon does it take to continually dig up megatons of coal, and transport that coal to where it is ultimately burned?

[RandomGuy]

Quite a fair amount. But it is a one time cost.

Now answer this question:

How much carbon does it take to continually dig up megatons of coal, and transport that coal to where it is ultimately burned?

Extra credit to answer the following questions:

What type of fuel is used to transport that coal?

Now, how much of that fuel is used to transport the 1.1bn tons of coal produced in the US every year?

What implication does this have on the costs of using coal, if the price of that fuel goes up faster than the price of coal?

[MannyIsGod]

When driving through rural SD near the black hills we saw trains that went on for miles that were loaded with nothing but coal. Quite a few of them too - one after another. Interesting sight.

[CosmicCowboy]

Extra credit to answer the following questions:

What type of fuel is used to transport that coal?

Diesel/electric

Now, how much of that fuel is used to transport the 1.1bn tons of coal produced in the US every year?

Your conversion factor is 457 ton/mile per gallon of diesel

What implication does this have on the costs of using coal, if the price of that fuel goes up faster than the price of coal?

If it gets to the point that the cost of diesel to transport the coal is prohibitive then society as we know it will have already ceased to exist. HEB won't be able to put groceries on the shelf.

[Wild Cobra]

For someone who constantly sings the praises of the free market you seemed to be hell bent on stopping wind power when the free market wants to go in that direction.
There you go again twisting what I say to your perverted bigoted thinking.

No. If the free market is willing to pay for non subsidized wind power then I have no problem with it.

Its sad how you keep trying to manipulate either the argument or facts in order to suit your desires.

That would be you.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL... I missed the farad talk...

You can actually get EDLC capacitors with up to 5,000 farad capacity these days...

Yes, I know. I didn't think Fuzzy would be able to find them. Besides, I also said capacitors are normally rated in microfarads and below. They finally broke the 1 farad point about 20 years ago if I recall correctly. Still, their capacity falls short of batteries, and they fall short of retaining power for any decent time. Have to convert to DC, then back to AC also. When you consider they are halved in value for series, and DC transmission are normally something like 300KV+... Did a quick check, the best out there by Wiki is 20 Wh/Kg. maybe a little better now, but it won't be much.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Supercapacitors_chart.svg/500px-Supercapacitors_chart.svg.png

[Wild Cobra]

No explanation on how temperature inversions can cause winds to suddenly stop, WC?
When the denser air flows off the warmer air and over the top of the mountains, then is depleted. I don't know all the reasons, I just know it happens. I'm not even sure if this is exactly how it happens.

Now in gorge areas, other wing patterns I think can act as a switch, stopping movement. there are frequent winds through the Columbia River Gorge. Wind patterns on the other side of the mountains might be ably to stop the flow. I'm only guessing here.

Again, I'll bet you cannot prove me wrong. Stop having a sore ass over this and move on. It's not that important to the discussion at hand since windmills would likely not be built in such areas.

[Wild Cobra]

Quite a fair amount. But it is a one time cost.

Now answer this question:

How much carbon does it take to continually dig up megatons of coal, and transport that coal to where it is ultimately burned?
Some of us don't care about carbon emissions.

[Wild Cobra]

Extra credit to answer the following questions:

What type of fuel is used to transport that coal?

Now, how much of that fuel is used to transport the 1.1bn tons of coal produced in the US every year?

What implication does this have on the costs of using coal, if the price of that fuel goes up faster than the price of coal?
Interesting question. I'm not going to bother going beyond saying fossil fuel is used to transport it. The bulk of it is probably transported by diesel hybrid trains, which get very good fuel economy. Far better ton-miles/gallon than any truck will ever get. I don't see such costs being any significant part of the coal fired plant costs.

[MannyIsGod]

There you go again twisting what I say to your perverted bigoted thinking.

No. If the free market is willing to pay for non subsidized wind power then I have no problem with it.

That would be you.

Oh I see, wind power can't be subsidized like EVERY OTHER POWER SOURCE currently is?
:lol

[RandomGuy]

What type of fuel is used to transport that coal?


Diesel/electric

Now, how much of that fuel is used to transport the 1.1bn tons of coal produced in the US every year?


Your conversion factor is 457 ton/mile per gallon of diesel

What implication does this have on the costs of using coal, if the price of that fuel goes up faster than the price of coal?


If it gets to the point that the cost of diesel to transport the coal is prohibitive then society as we know it will have already ceased to exist. HEB won't be able to put groceries on the shelf.



The first two were right, the last was incorrect.

I understand that since you think you need to "stick it to the environmentalist whacos" or similar, you have to ignore the implication that if oil gets more expensive, so does coal, but let's assume you answered the last question correctly as well. I think you are quite capable of answering it correctly, if pressed to be entirely honest about it. (no offense intended in any of that)

It is not my contention that diesel will be "prohibitively" expensive any time soon, although that will happen at some point in my probable lifetime.

What will happen long before that though, is a subtle shift in the cost comparisons between energy sources.

The way free-markets work when it comes to interchangable items, and energy sources are, to a good degree, interchangable, is to ensure that there will be a mix, and the components of that mix will be dependant on their COMPARATIVE costs.

Oil is one of our primary sources of energy at the moment, because, RELATIVE to everything else it is fairly cheap.

As the relative costs change, so does the mix in a dynamic market, such as what we have globally.

It is also generally agreed by the people who really study energy, that long before you approach depletion of oil/coal, you will see price increases that are fairly rapid relative to the economy's ability to pay. This will not be a "skyrocket" scenario, but rather sustained increases faster than the rate of inflation, with the pace of those increases increasing itself over time.

When that happens COMPARED to things like renewables, fossil fuels will become more and more competitive, and the mix WILL change.

The problem we face is that once you build a power plant, you lock yourself into that plant for the life of that plant, generally some 30 years.

Answer this then:

If, due to technological advances and sheer economies of scale, wind is coming down to a price that is approachign parity with that of coal, what does that imply about the future, if the price of coal will be going up faster than most expect?

[MannyIsGod]

When the denser air flows off the warmer air and over the top of the mountains, then is depleted. I don't know all the reasons, I just know it happens. I'm not even sure if this is exactly how it happens.

Now in gorge areas, other wing patterns I think can act as a switch, stopping movement. there are frequent winds through the Columbia River Gorge. Wind patterns on the other side of the mountains might be ably to stop the flow. I'm only guessing here.

Again, I'll bet you cannot prove me wrong. Stop having a sore ass over this and move on. It's not that important to the discussion at hand since windmills would likely not be built in such areas.

You're only guessing and you don't know how it happens? Yes, I know. I can absolutely prove you wrong. Temperature inversions at low levels are formed by calm winds which prevent atmospheric mixing. However, seeing as how they form in calm winds I'm at a loss to figure out exactly how they would stop winds. Its the equivalent of saying that a burn on skin can start a fire.

Its not relevant to the discussion directly, but as much as you hounded fuzzy to answer you I find it ironic how quickly you forget to address questions directed at you. Its directly relevant to your credibility although with one read through this thread I'm not sure how anyone could find you credible when you are continuously proven wrong.

Here's an idea for you to carry forward. Don't call out others on subjects where they know far more than you. I realize your ego does not let you recognize that there are a lot of people who fit this bill but maybe after all the times you've been proven wrong something will sink in.

[Wild Cobra]

Oh I see, wind power can't be subsidized like EVERY OTHER POWER SOURCE currently is?
:lol
How is other power subsided? I am against subsidies. How.

[Wild Cobra]

You're only guessing and you don't know how it happens?

dribble
dribble
dribble


Yet you cannot prove me wrong.

Shut up or put up.

[CosmicCowboy]

The first two were right, the last was incorrect.

I understand that since you think you need to "stick it to the environmentalist whacos" or similar, you have to ignore the implication that if oil gets more expensive, so does coal, but let's assume you answered the last question correctly as well. I think you are quite capable of answering it correctly, if pressed to be entirely honest about it.

I have no need to "stick it to the environmental whackos". You REALLY don't know me and your post was offensive.

I answered the third correctly.

If you want to be against coal then just be against coal. Don't use the ridiculous and specious argument that the cost to transport it will make it prohibitively expensive in the future.

The simple fact is that if that actually becomes the case then millions of people will already be starving because that same fuel is integral to raising, harvesting, transporting, processing and packaging food for distribution to the consumer.

[MannyIsGod]

How is other power subsided? I am against subsidies. How.

Is this a serious question? Coal Plants are subsidized, Gas Plants are subsidized, Nuclear plants are subsidized.

[MannyIsGod]

Yet you cannot prove me wrong.

Shut up or put up.


Conditions that favor the development of a strong surface inversion are calm winds, clear skies, and long nights. Calm winds prevent warmer air above the surface from mixing down to the ground, and clear skies increase the rate of cooling at the Earth's surface.

And this is just surface inversions. Winds happen under upper level inversion layers.

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/slc/climate/TemperatureInversions.php

This is what I mean, your ego prevents you from even considering you're wrong. Its amazing how myopic you are.

[RandomGuy]

Interesting question. I'm not going to bother going beyond saying fossil fuel is used to transport it. The bulk of it is probably transported by diesel hybrid trains, which get very good fuel economy. Far better ton-miles/gallon than any truck will ever get. I don't see such costs being any significant part of the coal fired plant costs.

Relatively very little of our annual oil consumption goes to transporting coal, by my rough estimates.

Hard to find the cost of fuel, but there seems to be a lot of interesting information on the costs of shipping it:

Here is a couple of interesting articles:
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2010/01/25/2
http://chestofbooks.com/finance/economics/Commerce-and-Finance/Transportation-By-Rail-Continued-Classification-Of-Freigh.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/trans/ratesntrends.html

Ultimately though the data can be ferreted out of financial statements:
(pdf link follows to rail company financials)
http://www.bnsf.com/about-bnsf/financial-information/annual-reports-and-proxy-statements/pdf/2008annrpt.pdf

Fuel is the largest single cost in 2008 to the comapany, representing 32% of the operating costs of BNSF. Infer this into the shipping costs, and you can probably arrive at a fair estimation. (pg 10)

The variable nature of these costs are readily seen in UP's 2009 financials where the cost of diesel fell by half:
http://www.up.com/investors/attachments/secfiling/2010/upc10k_021710.pdf

UP fuel costs only represented about 15% of their operating costs the next year with a fall off of fuel prices.

It was interesting to see how much the price of fuel could swing for the two railroad companies, between years.

I think it is safe to say that fuel represents a fairly substantial chunk of any rail company's expenses.

It would be possible to ferret out the exact rates and cost structure by reverse-engineering the financials, but I think we can all agree that:

Yes, the cost of a ton of coal is affected to a fair degree by the cost of fuel to move it. It is not the largest component of the cost of a ton of coal, but significant enough to affect then ending cost materially.


(edit)

The swing between the two companies represented the swing between years in the financials of the price of diesel. UP and BNSF paid roughly the same proportion, 33% of operating expenses, in 2008, so I assume their structures were fairly similar.

[Wild Cobra]

And this is just surface inversions. Winds happen under upper level inversion layers.

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/slc/climate/TemperatureInversions.php

This is what I mean, your ego prevents you from even considering you're wrong. Its amazing how myopic you are.

That does not disprove what I said and yes, I know what a temperature inversion is.

Idiot. Stop ASSuming. It does not disprove the effect over the top over a mountain range.

Again, put up or shut up.

[MannyIsGod]

An example of a capping inversion would be over San Antonio nearly all summer. And yet the average wind speed is 9mph through that period. This is why even with a large amount of heat and humidity San Antonio does not see large amounts of convection during the summer.

[MannyIsGod]

That does not disprove what I said and yes, I know what a temperature inversion is.

Idiot. It does not disprove the effect over the top over a mountain range.

Again, put up or shut up.

Never mind man. You've made up some imaginary effect and given it an imaginary effect of stopping wind while you admit you don't know how it works.

Inversions at the low level - this includes valleys and mountains - do not form in windy conditions. Nor do they form suddenly. Its not like one sec no inversion the next INVERSION TIME!

If you want to continue believing as you do in the absence of all proof then feel free. Ignorance is bliss, after all.

[RandomGuy]

I have no need to "stick it to the environmental whackos". You REALLY don't know me and your post was offensive.

I answered the third correctly.

If you want to be against coal then just be against coal. Don't use the ridiculous and specious argument that the cost to transport it will make it prohibitively expensive in the future.

The simple fact is that if that actually becomes the case then millions of people will already be starving because that same fuel is integral to raising, harvesting, transporting, processing and packaging food for distribution to the consumer.

I know that you generally view environmentalists as being irrational.

I am not against coal, although I am against not being honest about the costs.

I have never said it would "prohibitively expensive" to ship coal. That is a distortion of what I said.

You are incorrect as to your answer being the right one.

The answer to the question:

What implication does this have on the costs of using coal, if the price of that fuel goes up faster than the price of coal?

Is simply:

"The cost of using coal goes up as the cost of transporting it goes up."

No more, no less. It was a really simple question, with a really simple answer.

That you wanted to read more into it and take it a step farther to distort what I am saying, so that you can dismiss what I am saying in an intellectually dishonest strawman attack is your business.

[ElNono]

Yes, I know. I didn't think Fuzzy would be able to find them. Besides, I also said capacitors are normally rated in microfarads and below.

[edited the lame attempt to save face]




Show me a capacitor rated in farads.

:lmao

[ElNono]

double post

[RandomGuy]

Before we get too far down the "i'm so mad at the other guy" road here:



If you want to be against coal then just be against coal. Don't use the ridiculous and specious argument that the cost to transport it will make it prohibitively expensive in the future.




It is not my contention that diesel will be "prohibitively" expensive any time soon, although that will happen at some point in my probable lifetime.

I can provide some pretty fair data showing that, barring some technology unknown at this time, the price of oil 20-40 years down the road will be much higher than most people realize, if you wish.

I don't find the argument specious. I have some basis for thinking that transportation costs for bulky fuels will be fairly high.

[CosmicCowboy]

I know that you generally view environmentalists as being irrational.

Uhhh...you are talking about a guy that grows grass fed beef, organic vegetables, and owns electric vehicles. I am not anti-environment.

At the same time, I don't buy into the man caused global warming hysteria. That doesn't mean I'm anti-environment.


I am not against coal, although I am against not being honest about the costs.

I agree that there is a front and back end cost to coal as a fuel. That can be said about almost anything...ever seen a a copper mine used to make wire for wind generators?

I have never said it would "prohibitively expensive" to ship coal. That is a distortion of what I said.

You are incorrect as to your answer being the right one.

OK, it certainly seemed like you were attempting to make that "what if" point.

The answer to the question:

What implication does this have on the costs of using coal, if the price of that fuel goes up faster than the price of coal?

Is simply:

"The cost of using coal goes up as the cost of transporting it goes up."

No more, no less. It was a really simple question, with a really simple answer.

Actually, more and more I'm seeing market pricing loosely based on BTU content and not individual fuel/energy cost to produce...examples: Diesel used to be much cheaper than gasoline and had a higher BTU content. It is now more expensive than gasoline...also, when the price of oil jumps because of external influences (middle east tension for instance) the price of locally produced natural gas seems to follow...

That you wanted to read more into it and take it a step farther to distort what I am saying, so that you can dismiss what I am saying in an intellectually dishonest strawman attack is your business.

It was

If you can't answer a simple question, say so.

I did answer it.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

I didn't think Fuzzy would be able to find them.
Why you laughing?

Didn't you understand?

May as well laugh at yourself.

[ElNono]

Why you laughing?

Didn't you understand?

May as well laugh at yourself.

:lmao

[MannyIsGod]

I have no idea why Nono's laughing but I know that if he's laughing I want to laugh too.

:lmao

[ElNono]

I do admit it when I'm wrong. Why can't you?

:lmao :lmao :lmao

[LnGrrrR]

What implication does this have on the costs of using coal, if the price of that fuel goes up faster than the price of coal?

If it gets to the point that the cost of diesel to transport the coal is prohibitive then society as we know it will have already ceased to exist. HEB won't be able to put groceries on the shelf.


Which is why it might good to subsidize alternative energies, as if we're relying on businesses, there's a good chance they will milk the coal mines for all it's worth until they invest in a more expensive technology to produce energy, and by that time, it's too late.

[LnGrrrR]

The whole point of the carbon it takes to transport coal was reallyj ust a sidebar introduced by DarrinS asinine question about transporting windmill blades.

[RandomGuy]

If you can't answer a simple question, say so.


I did answer it.

Sorry about that. I backspace over a lot of angry words before posting them, but in this case it got through.

I edited it out immediately, becuase it was not really warranted and seemed disrespectful, but apparently not before you got it.

My apologies.

[RandomGuy]

How realistic is it that a wind farm putting out 200MW would drop to 0 instantaneously? I don't think wind behaves that way where it's blowing 30mph one second and 0mph the next. Plus, we do have an ability to predict the weather. Not with perfection, but certainly we can look far enough ahead to cover the amount of time it takes to crank up the output from other generation sources.

Exactly my point.

I go a bit further:

The more wind power you have over a larger area the more stable the overall "supply" of wind is.

[RandomGuy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the polar wind always blowing in their area? We have few places in the USA that the wind is always blowing.

Now I agree it is a clean form of energy. I never said otherwise. I am simply of the mindset it is cheaper to build with clean technology (low emission) natural gas and coal power plants. I honestly do thrust that when alternate forms of energy become cost effective, they will be used without needing subsidies.

What will happen in maybe 10 years when the subsidies run out? well the power companies abandon wind power as they need repairs because of cost to revenue ratios? Will the country side start being filled with windmills not doing anything?

Just a thought. Agree or disagree. I simply believe in the free market more than most.

The answer is:
You have already sunk the costs in building the windmills.
At that point, the choice is:
1) continue operating and pay the minimal maintenance costs
or
2) spend a lot of money building new coal/gas plants

The real question is what will happen in 30 years when the windmills reach the end of their useful lives.

The hard part for wind power is building it in the first place.

[RandomGuy]

Actually, more and more I'm seeing market pricing loosely based on BTU content and not individual fuel/energy cost to produce...examples: Diesel used to be much cheaper than gasoline and had a higher BTU content. It is now more expensive than gasoline...also, when the price of oil jumps because of external influences (middle east tension for instance) the price of locally produced natural gas seems to follow...


Well, bear in mind as scott pointed out a long time ago (economist who actually studies oil industry), the limiting factor for fuel used to be refinery capacity.

That limits conversion of fuels to what the market demands, and that means that a strict BTU content measurement won't always match up.

There has been a subtle change in mindset/paradigm in people who write a lot about this topic to start viewing fuels by actual energy content, because of the realisation that sources of energy are becoming increasingly interchangable.

One has to remember that when one looks at gas following the price of oil.

If oil goes up, then things made from oil go up. Demand then shifts from oil to alternatives, such as gas, until a new supply/demand equilibrium is approached. There is a certain amount of investor speculation involved too.

Since oil is THE dominant energy source for humanity currently, the weighted average cost of a unit of energy is highly dependent on oil.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes, I know. I didn't think Fuzzy would be able to find them. Besides, I also said capacitors are normally rated in microfarads and below. They finally broke the 1 farad point about 20 years ago if I recall correctly. Still, their capacity falls short of batteries, and they fall short of retaining power for any decent time. Have to convert to DC, then back to AC also. When you consider they are halved in value for series, and DC transmission are normally something like 300KV+... Did a quick check, the best out there by Wiki is 20 Wh/Kg. maybe a little better now, but it won't be much.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Supercapacitors_chart.svg/500px-Supercapacitors_chart.svg.png

Bullshit, if you want a larger capacitance you just add plates in parallel.

And of course you did not think I would find it. You did not know they existed because they are not a part you change in the machines you work on.

[Wild Cobra]

Bullshit, if you want a larger capacitance you just add plates in parallel.

And of course you did not think I would find it. You did not know they existed because they are not a part you change in the machines you work on.
OK smartypants.

Show me a 300,000 Volt 1 farad capacitor.

Remember, you have to put capacitors in series to increase the voltage. Series capacitors decrease their capacitance. Therefor, if you have to put in series 10,000 capacitors to have a 300,000 volt breakdown voltage, then you have to also have 10,000 of these strings in parallel to maintain the capacitance. That's a total of 100,000,000 capacitors at 1 farad each, or 100,000 of them if they are 1,000 farad capacitors. Another problem, i think this design stops at 3 volts breakdown. Not 30.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

OK smartypants.

Show me a 300,000 Volt 1 farad capacitor.

Remember, you have to put capacitors in series to increase the voltage. Series capacitors decrease their capacitance. Therefor, if you have to put in series 10,000 capacitors to have a 300,000 volt breakdown voltage, then you have to also have 10,000 of these strings in parallel to maintain the capacitance. That's a total of 100,000,000 capacitors at 1 farad each, or 100,000 of them if they are 1,000 farad capacitors. Another problem, i think this design stops at 3 volts breakdown. Not 30.

I do not have to show shit. There have been 1F capacitors in car stereos alonefor decades.

I also said in parallel not series. You can try and throw that in there to make a point but I guess its beyond you to conceive of a circuit of only parallel capacitors You really do not know shit. Not all capacitors are used to build up voltage to start an electric motor like you are used to working on.

You put them in parallel and then consider sigma-V = 0. Seriously how do you figure they make the larger capacitors? You think they just make huge plates? God you are clueless.

Go change some parts.

[CosmicCowboy]

it's always amusing to see how threads spin out of control in here.

[Wild Cobra]

I do not have to show shit. There have been 1F capacitors in car stereos alonefor decades.

I also said in parallel not series. You can try and throw that in there to make a point but I guess its beyond you to conceive of a circuit of only parallel capacitors You really do not know shit. Not all capacitors are used to build up voltage to start an electric motor like you are used to working on.

You put them in parallel and then consider sigma-V = 0. Seriously how do you figure they make the larger capacitors? You think they just make huge plates? God you are clueless.

Go change some parts.
LOL...

Again, you prove you are full of it. ∑ V doesn't matter. You risk turning your capacitors into bombs if you exceed their rated voltage.

[MannyIsGod]

it's always amusing to see how threads spin out of control in here.

Indeed.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

Again, you prove you are full of it. ∑ V doesn't matter. You risk turning your capacitors into bombs if you exceed their rated voltage.

Since you like playing quiz show. How do you think they make the 100F capacitors? I know that you only understand the specs on the parts you are changing but come on.

When you split the circuit the voltage going into each capacitor in parallel is equal. So what does that mean for the voltage on each capacitor?

[Wild Cobra]

Since you like playing quiz show. How do you think they make the 100F capacitors? I know that you only understand the specs on the parts you are changing but come on.

When you split the circuit the voltage going into each capacitor in parallel is equal. So what does that mean for the voltage on each capacitor?
True. Voltage is still the same. But you have to put capacitors in series to increase their breakdown voltage, which decreases capacitance.

[LnGrrrR]

I enjoy a good technical (read: nerd) discussion. :D

[FuzzyLumpkins]

True. But you have to put capacitors in series to increase their breakdown voltage, which decreases capacitance.

No shit its true and thus sigma-v is key.

When you put them in parallel the voltage and current in are the same as the voltage and current out. In essence, it is the same as a single capacitor with a larger surface area and that is what you would see if you actually opened up the cylinders that you change out and again capacitors have many more uses than the starters that you are used to working on.

If you had even a rudimentary understanding of the physics involved you would know this.

You quite obviously know nothing about signals.

This clearly demonstrates how your knowledge is a tiny box.

[Wild Cobra]

No shit its true and thus sigma-v is key.

When you put them in parallel the voltage and current in are the same as the voltage and current out. In essence, it is the same as a single capacitor with a larger surface area and that is what you would see if you actually opened up the cylinders that you change out and again capacitors have many more uses than the starters that you are used to working on.

If you had even a rudimentary understanding of the physics involved you would know this.

You quite obviously know nothing about signals.

This clearly demonstrates how your knowledge is a tiny box.
Ask anyone who has studied electronics.

You are flat out wrong. All capacitors also have a rated voltage. You cannot use small voltage capacitors with high voltage.

[CosmicCowboy]

zeez guys, get a classroom.

[Wild Cobra]

zeez guys, get a classroom.
I'm trying to school him, but he's too dumb to understand that he doesn't understand.

[MannyIsGod]

Kinda like how you schooled me on temperature inversions causing sudden wind stoppage over large areas?

[Wild Cobra]

Kinda like how you schooled me on temperature inversions causing sudden wind stoppage over large areas?
I don't know if that was the actual cause, it is an educated guess because of the geographical features of where I lived. I simply know that the winds were rather erratic, and could suddenly stop where I lived. Weather of not it is cause by the inversion over the mountain range is uncertain. I do know the changing wins is a fact there however.

Prove me wrong or can it.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

[LnGrrrR]

I don't know if that was the actual cause, it is an educated guess because of the geographical features of where I lived. I simply know that the winds were rather erratic, and could suddenly stop where I lived. Weather of not it is cause by the inversion over the mountain range is uncertain. I do know the changing wins is a fact there however.

Prove me wrong or can it.

WC, I don't think you can claim something then expect your opposition to have to prove it. Technically, the burden of proof is on you to provide empirical data.

[Wild Cobra]

WC, I don't think you can claim something then expect your opposition to have to prove it. Technically, the burden of proof is on you to provide empirical data.
Some things are difficult to prove. If he is so certain that something he never witnessed cannot happen, then what is that based on?

How many things in life have you witnessed, but don't know how to prove what you witnessed?

He is calling me a liar. For that, I demand he put up or shut up.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm trying to school him, but he's too dumb to understand that he doesn't understand.

Bluster gets you nowhere. Lets get back to capacitors in parallel and why you brought up voltage. You only bring up putting capacitors in series but we are not talking about that.

We are talking about why on Earth you would think that 1F capacitors are some sort of new technology.

Basically all you do is bring up whats on the schematics of the machines you change parts on.

[LnGrrrR]

Some things are difficult to prove. If he is so certain that something he never witnessed cannot happen, then what is that based on?

Well, you made the claim, and right now it's your word against his. If you produce evidence, he'd have to rebut it.


How many things in life have you witnessed, but don't know how to prove what you witnessed?

That's kinda the point though. If I tell you I saw an elephant jump 2 feet into the air, but have no proof, then it's just on my credibility. And on the internet, personal credibility doesn't go very far.


He is calling me a liar. For that, I demand he put up or shut up.

He's not calling you a liar, per se. He can believe that you've felt the wind die down suddenly, while also believing that you are wrong about that affecting overall wind patterns/energy/etc.

I don't think anyone's saying that your personal experience is invalid WC, just that it doesn't do alot for your overall argument. (Additionally, I think Manny might even concede that windmills aren't an efficient usage of resources in those mountainous areas, and would be better, say, on the East Coast.)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

WC, I don't think you can claim something then expect your opposition to have to prove it. Technically, the burden of proof is on you to provide empirical data.

Yup the whole prove me wrong or IOW prove a negative is literally impossible. You can always question causality.

I can admit that I do not know shit about meteorology. WC sounds like his narcissism cannot withstand ever being wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

Hey fuzzy...

Check out this:

Capacitors (http://www.piclist.com/images/www/hobby_elec/e_capa.htm)
Breakdown voltage

When using a capacitor, you must pay attention to the maximum voltage which can be used. This is the "breakdown voltage." The breakdown voltage depends on the kind of capacitor being used. You must be especially careful with electrolytic capacitors because the breakdown voltage is comparatively low. The breakdown voltage of electrolytic capacitors is displayed as Working Voltage.

The breakdown voltage is the voltage that when exceeded will cause the dielectric (insulator) inside the capacitor to break down and conduct. When this happens, the failure can be catastrophic.

If that's not enough, the facts about capacitors are readily available. If you don't know how to google, let me know. I'll find more for you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Some things are difficult to prove. If he is so certain that something he never witnessed cannot happen, then what is that based on?

How many things in life have you witnessed, but don't know how to prove what you witnessed?

He is calling me a liar. For that, I demand he put up or shut up.

No he is asking you for proof. You induced knowledge by making a claim. He is asking for supporting evidence. The American legal system is centered around this idea. The prosecution induces the idea to the court that something is true and has to support it with evidence.

Believe it or not people are not just going to accept what you say as gospel on the internet.

[LnGrrrR]

No he is asking you for proof. You induced knowledge by making a claim. He is asking for supporting evidence. The American legal system is centered around this idea. The prosecution induces the idea to the court that something is true and has to support it with evidence.

Believe it or not people are not just going to accept what you say as gospel on the internet.

Good point on the separation between a person presenting the argument and the argument itself. Zosa called me on a comment in another thread, and I couldn't readily find proof and said as such. I didn't take it personally though.

[Wild Cobra]

No he is asking you for proof. You induced knowledge by making a claim. He is asking for supporting evidence. The American legal system is centered around this idea. The prosecution induces the idea to the court that something is true and has to support it with evidence.

Believe it or not people are not just going to accept what you say as gospel on the internet.
I understand that. Do you understand this:
How many things in life have you witnessed, but don't know how to prove what you witnessed?

He is calling me a liar. For that, I demand he put up or shut up.

[Wild Cobra]

Good point on the separation between a person presenting the argument and the argument itself. Zosa called me on a comment in another thread, and I couldn't readily find proof and said as such. I didn't take it personally though.
But doesn't it piss you off when someone won't let it go?

[LnGrrrR]

But doesn't it piss you off when someone won't let it go?

Eh, if I can't produce for a claim, I state that, and let the reader choose to believe me or not. If they don't believe me, and I haven't provided evidence, I can't really blame them.

Again, they're not calling ME a liar, they're just saying that my argument/deductive skills are faulty. Maybe I remembered something wrong, maybe my analysis is off, etc etc.

I try not to hold grudges too often. :)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hey fuzzy...

Check out this:

Capacitors (http://www.piclist.com/images/www/hobby_elec/e_capa.htm)

If that's not enough, the facts about capacitors are readily available. If you don't know how to google, let me know. I'll find more for you.

That has no bearing on capacitors in parallel.

The discussion is about how capacitors are made. Not on how you use capacitors at work.

In parallel there is no increased voltage. If anything there is a decrease because there is going to be a drop because of resistance in the leads. So hey you keep on talking about how you do not want to use too high a voltage on a capacitor when it is very clear that when you increase capacitance it does not increase the voltage.

The discussion is about how you did not know about 1F capacitors and thus how they would have been possible. The nature of voltage in a circuit has been understood for 200 years.

You might as well talk about thermal inversions for how much it applies to the discussion. Nice red herring though.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Eh, if I can't produce for a claim, I state that, and let the reader choose to believe me or not. If they don't believe me, and I haven't provided evidence, I can't really blame them.

Again, they're not calling ME a liar, they're just saying that my argument/deductive skills are faulty. Maybe I remembered something wrong, maybe my analysis is off, etc etc.

I try not to hold grudges too often. :)

It also does not help when there is evidence to the contrary from a third source.

[Wild Cobra]

That has no bearing on capacitors in parallel.

The discussion is about how capacitors are made. Not on how you use capacitors at work.

In parallel there is no increased voltage. If anything there is a decrease because there is going to be a drop because of resistance in the leads. So hey you keep on talking about how you do not want to use too high a voltage on a capacitor when it is very clear that when you increase capacitance it does not increase the voltage.

The discussion is about how you did not know about 1F capacitors and thus how they would have been possible. The nature of voltage in a circuit has been understood for 200 years.

You might as well talk about thermal inversions for how much it applies to the discussion. Nice red herring though.
You're changing the argument to one I'm not disagreeing with. I never said 1 farad capacitors and above didn't exist. I never claimed you were wrong with that. The points I say you are wrong about, you refuse to address.

please...

Are you really that dumb, or have too much misplaced pride to admit you're wrong?

[MannyIsGod]

For the record, WC cannot prove that winds suddenly stop over a large area based on what he feels. Thats my biggest beef. Yet he maintains its possible based upon a person observation ignoring the inherent flaw that he can't observe a large area all at once nor is he equipped with an anemometer to accurately measure wind speed nor is he tall enough to gather appropriate wind data.

Its not that he's a liar, its that his personal observation is worthless. To follow that up he tossed out a bunch of jargon as he usually does in an effort to back up his claim except that I'm not just a regular forum idiot who sees big words and just assumes they're used correctly. I'm a meteorology student who happens to know how some of this shit actually works.

[clambake]

on the 3rd tee today the wind was a dead calm.........but the top of the tall pines were whipping about 20 mph.

[MannyIsGod]

on the 3rd tee today the wind was a dead calm.........but the top of the tall pines were whipping about 20 mph.

WC could be 20ft tall for all I know.

[Wild Cobra]

For the record, WC cannot prove that winds suddenly stop over a large area based on what he feels.
I might be able to if I spent enough time, but I'm not going to. I will concede that i am not going to attempt to prove it.

Thats my biggest beef. Yet he maintains its possible based upon a person observation ignoring the inherent flaw that he can't observe a large area all at once nor is he equipped with an anemometer to accurately measure wind speed nor is he tall enough to gather appropriate wind data.
Call it a flaw if you want. After all, you don't know my capacity of observation.


Its not that he's a liar, its that his personal observation is worthless.
To you it is.

To follow that up he tossed out a bunch of jargon as he usually does in an effort to back up his claim except that I'm not just a regular forum idiot who sees big words and just assumes they're used correctly. I'm a meteorology student who happens to know how some of this shit actually works.

What do you know about wind patterns of an area surrounded by shallow mountains on four sides with a gorge cut through it carrying the mighty Columbia river? A bit farther to the west is the cascade mountain range. The gorge will have violent winds at times. Almost always windy and can blow either direction.

You're right, I don't know all the geophysics that apply here. I simply know the facts I witnessed.

[LnGrrrR]

You're right, I don't know all the geophysics that apply here. I simply know the facts I witnessed.

Surely you can understand why that might not be enough evidence to sway Manny?

[Wild Cobra]

Surely you can understand why that might not be enough evidence to sway Manny?
I don't care. Must he keep razzing me? Why can't he let it go?

[Wild Cobra]

Lumpy...

How long does it take to figure out breakdown voltage and having to put capacitors in series to increase breakdown voltage?

You know what happens to capacitance when you put capacitors in parallel. Do you know what happens when you put them in series?

[Wild Cobra]

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/science/seriescapacitors-edit.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor)

[MannyIsGod]

I might be able to if I spent enough time, but I'm not going to. I will concede that i am not going to attempt to prove it.

Call it a flaw if you want. After all, you don't know my capacity of observation.

To you it is.

What do you know about wind patterns of an area surrounded by shallow mountains on four sides with a gorge cut through it carrying the mighty Columbia river? A bit farther to the west is the cascade mountain range. The gorge will have violent winds at times. Almost always windy and can blow either direction.

You're right, I don't know all the geophysics that apply here. I simply know the facts I witnessed.

:lmao

[CosmicCowboy]

http://3alleypub.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg

[MannyIsGod]

Yeah but we've seen a total of two patients today and I have to fill my day somehow.

[Wild Cobra]

http://3alleypub.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg
For being dead, that horse gets around:

http://samuelpablo.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/beatingdeadhorseka5.jpg?w=500

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is how the conversation unfolded:


I was saying wind mills did not store rotational power like a Rotary UPS does. You misunderstood.

As for the rest of your dribble...

Show me a capacitor rated in farads. They are generally rated in micro-farads and below.

You show yourself unknowledgeable again. You make too many foolish assumptions.

As for voltage, 120/240 is nominal. It varies somewhat. How many times you going to expose your ass?

Here is where you start with the capacitor bullshit.


And for domestic one rail in the breaker is 110 and two is 220 @ 60hz. Every monkey knows that.

http://www.sonicelectronix.com/cat_i...apacitors.html

Weeeee......... The machines you change parts on are in the order of e-6 but when you get down to the level of microprocessors they get down to the order as low as e-12. That would be a picofarad.

The only thing being exposed is your myopic knowledge, parts changer.

Now let me expand on this a bit. The minimum voltage the power company is to put out is 220V. If it goes below that then you have a brownout. Any machine that uses said power is based on 110V. There is no random variance. It is between 220V and 240V or it is not working properly.

Ironically, a transformer to regulate the voltage to a steady output involves a capacitor.


Yes, I know. I didn't think Fuzzy would be able to find them. Besides, I also said capacitors are normally rated in microfarads and below. They finally broke the 1 farad point about 20 years ago if I recall correctly. Still, their capacity falls short of batteries, and they fall short of retaining power for any decent time. Have to convert to DC, then back to AC also. When you consider they are halved in value for series, and DC transmission are normally something like 300KV+... Did a quick check, the best out there by Wiki is 20 Wh/Kg. maybe a little better now, but it won't be much.

Either you are stupid or you are lying. I invite anyone to run a google search of "1 farad capacitor." The whole page is full of them. Here is also where you make the completely wrong statement that 1F capacitors were broken into 20 years ago.

This is also where it becomes readily apparent your lack of knowledge. First you start babbling about capacitors in series which is a generally a bad idea but you also start to demonstrate you think capacitors are used just like batteries. The comment about batteries is truly hilarious because you have to apply a voltage to a capacitor before it can store or release current. Thats the whole point.

More on capacitors in series here in a bit.


Bullshit, if you want a larger capacitance you just add plates in parallel.

And of course you did not think I would find it. You did not know they existed because they are not a part you change in the machines you work on.

Here is where I begin to point out your idiocy.


OK smartypants.

Show me a 300,000 Volt 1 farad capacitor.

Remember, you have to put capacitors in series to increase the voltage. Series capacitors decrease their capacitance. Therefor, if you have to put in series 10,000 capacitors to have a 300,000 volt breakdown voltage, then you have to also have 10,000 of these strings in parallel to maintain the capacitance. That's a total of 100,000,000 capacitors at 1 farad each, or 100,000 of them if they are 1,000 farad capacitors. Another problem, i think this design stops at 3 volts breakdown. Not 30.

This goes to the land of who gives a fuck. Even if I granted that I could not show that, what fucking difference does it make? There are still 1F capacitors and they still work in parallel just fine.

There are also ways to increase how many volts a capacitor can handle. They consist of two plates separated by space. Now in that space there can be vacuum where the permeability of space is involved or it can be anything that is not a conductor. Say for example plastic. Now the issue is that they get hot and that breaks down the plastic so you get something more heat resistant.

What you do not do is put them in series especially at high voltage. How a capacitor charges is a differential function. When you put them in series they have different voltages applied to each one. That testy kirchoff works both ways. If there is variance in capacity that causes more voltage to be applied to the smallest capacitor. they cascade charge, the one that leaks the least eats all the leakage, get hot, conduct and boom. Its dangerous and you typically do not do it and you certainly do not do it for that.


I do not have to show shit. There have been 1F capacitors in car stereos alonefor decades.

I also said in parallel not series. You can try and throw that in there to make a point but I guess its beyond you to conceive of a circuit of only parallel capacitors You really do not know shit. Not all capacitors are used to build up voltage to start an electric motor like you are used to working on.

You put them in parallel and then consider sigma-V = 0. Seriously how do you figure they make the larger capacitors? You think they just make huge plates? God you are clueless.

Go change some parts.

Here I try to steer the discussion back to your initial fuckup of claiming no 1F caps and back to how they were possible only around in 1990 after you realized your fuckup.


LOL...

Again, you prove you are full of it. ∑ V doesn't matter. You risk turning your capacitors into bombs if you exceed their rated voltage.

Actually, sigma-V = 0 is precisely why they work in parallel and are dangerous in series. Another serious fuckup on your part. Your reading of wikipedia is obviously not helping you.

Now I admit I have had to bust out some textbooks to brush up on some shit but seriously youre just fucking lost.


Since you like playing quiz show. How do you think they make the 100F capacitors? I know that you only understand the specs on the parts you are changing but come on.

When you split the circuit the voltage going into each capacitor in parallel is equal. So what does that mean for the voltage on each capacitor?

I again try and steer the discussion back to the initial topic and of course


True. Voltage is still the same. But you have to put capacitors in series to increase their breakdown voltage, which decreases capacitance.

No you do not. You use a different insulator. And again who gives a fuck the discussion is about large capacitance capacitors. Its a red herring and you just ignore the question asked about how you thought they were made.


No shit its true and thus sigma-v is key.

When you put them in parallel the voltage and current in are the same as the voltage and current out. In essence, it is the same as a single capacitor with a larger surface area and that is what you would see if you actually opened up the cylinders that you change out and again capacitors have many more uses than the starters that you are used to working on.

If you had even a rudimentary understanding of the physics involved you would know this.

You quite obviously know nothing about signals.

This clearly demonstrates how your knowledge is a tiny box.

I seriously wonder why I try and explain how it actually works or stay with the argument that matters because of course you follow with this insipid bullshit.


Ask anyone who has studied electronics.

You are flat out wrong. All capacitors also have a rated voltage. You cannot use small voltage capacitors with high voltage.

And again who gives a shit. Fine but you do not need to put them in series to increase the voltage capacity. You use different materials.


I'm trying to school him, but he's too dumb to understand that he doesn't understand.

Sure you are..... :rolleyes


Bluster gets you nowhere. Lets get back to capacitors in parallel and why you brought up voltage. You only bring up putting capacitors in series but we are not talking about that.

We are talking about why on Earth you would think that 1F capacitors are some sort of new technology.

Basically all you do is bring up whats on the schematics of the machines you change parts on.

Here I once again try and steer the subject back to the salient issue and away from your red herring.


Hey fuzzy...

Check out this:

Capacitors (http://www.piclist.com/images/www/hobby_elec/e_capa.htm)

If that's not enough, the facts about capacitors are readily available. If you don't know how to google, let me know. I'll find more for you.

Again with the series bullshit and voltage capacity. You do not use series caps to do this and this still does not address 1F capacitors, how they were around for a long long time or how sigma-v applies. All of these go to your credibility and you again are full of fail.


That has no bearing on capacitors in parallel.

The discussion is about how capacitors are made. Not on how you use capacitors at work.

In parallel there is no increased voltage. If anything there is a decrease because there is going to be a drop because of resistance in the leads. So hey you keep on talking about how you do not want to use too high a voltage on a capacitor when it is very clear that when you increase capacitance it does not increase the voltage.

The discussion is about how you did not know about 1F capacitors and thus how they would have been possible. The nature of voltage in a circuit has been understood for 200 years.

You might as well talk about thermal inversions for how much it applies to the discussion. Nice red herring though.

Once again I try and steer the subject back.


You're changing the argument to one I'm not disagreeing with. I never said 1 farad capacitors and above didn't exist. I never claimed you were wrong with that. The points I say you are wrong about, you refuse to address.

please...

Are you really that dumb, or have too much misplaced pride to admit you're wrong?

Now you accuse me of changing the subject when its clear thats not the case after this review. Your dumbass was talking about series caps and being plain fucking wrong.


http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/science/seriescapacitors-edit.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor)

Again who gives a fuck. Fine series caps allow a higher voltage in theory but in practical application there are other ways to do it that are not dangerous.

You once again are trying the bait and switch.

I am still waiting for an explanation how sigma-V = 0 does not matter, how you thought that 1F did not exist or how you later tried to dodge it by saying they were only created in 1990.

[ElNono]

:lmao :lmao :lmao

[Wild Cobra]

Fuzzy, you prove again that you don't understand. You are a joke. We were referring to power systems and storage. High capacity capacitors are only for low voltage. You fail to understand critical things about capacitors.

Bye.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

What reality do you live in?

[RandomGuy]

I got no skin in the "capacitor" argument, so I think it is safe to say:


:lol @ at two people aruging over the electrical properties of capacitors in the political section of a basketball message board. No offense meant to either party inolved.

I LOVE the internet for random (HA) shit like that.

[RandomGuy]

WC could be 20ft tall for all I know.

WC's real name is Bill Braskey.

-NjgPDIeSXA

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy, you prove again that you don't understand. You are a joke. We were referring to power systems and storage. High capacity capacitors are only for low voltage. You fail to understand critical things about capacitors.

Bye.

:lmao :lmao :lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I got no skin in the "capacitor" argument, so I think it is safe to say:


:lol @ at two people aruging over the electrical properties of capacitors in the political section of a basketball message board. No offense meant to either party inolved.

I LOVE the internet for random (HA) shit like that.

He just goes through wikipedia and tries to spout shit as if he actually knows what he is talking about. He said some really stupid shit and I would not let it go no matter how hard he tried to change the subject.

A bit obsessive? Sure but he is goddamn annoying.

[MannyIsGod]

He does this all the time. Its his MO to sprout off jargon in an effort to make someone believe he understands what is involved. Its ironic as hell considering he's constantly praising himself for understanding the science behind everything he says.

He's a con artist and he's a god damn poor one. I can't believe RG has spent so much time arguing with him on climate change.

[ElNono]

Parts changer

:lmao :lmao :lmao

[RandomGuy]

He does this all the time. Its his MO to sprout off jargon in an effort to make someone believe he understands what is involved. Its ironic as hell considering he's constantly praising himself for understanding the science behind everything he says.

He's a con artist and he's a god damn poor one. I can't believe RG has spent so much time arguing with him on climate change.

Technically, I have stopped arguing with anybody about climate change. It is a bit like trying to argue physics and chemistry with 9-11 truthers. Deniers are hip-deep in pseudo-science and arguing with such people about their beliefs is akin to trying to convince someone their religious dogma is dogma.

Where I do argue, and with a perfect track record so far, is for prudent risk management, and fairly solid economic grounds. I have yet to have any denier adequately and logically address either the risk managment and economic implications of man's use of fossil fuels.

Two specific instances stand out in my mind most that illustrate most clearly the failures in reasoning on the part of many "conservaties/libertarians" that WC exemplifies fairly well.

One was a news article about the government's decision to include some effects of ground air pollution on health in estimates of the real cost of air pollution. This included things like respitory distress to vulnerable populations and so forth. WC focused in on a couple of seeming semantic mistakes on the part of the reporter ("it should have been "oxide" instead of "oxides", etc), while completely ignoring the main thrust of the article. In his mind, hyper-focusing on the mistakes or hidden bias of the reporter completely invalidated the decision to more comprehensively factor in some health costs in considering pollution legislation.

Another was where he flat out stated once that teen pregnancies were much higher these days than when he was growing up, something that proved to be contrary to actual data. When presented with actual data showing the opposite, he started attempting, yet again, to tear down the source, and split hairs on definitions, as if either would somehow support his statement.

I see here the same thing playing out, although the pure science being discussed is a tad over my head.

[Wild Cobra]

One was a news article about the government's decision to include some effects of ground air pollution on health in estimates of the real cost of air pollution. This included things like respitory distress to vulnerable populations and so forth. WC focused in on a couple of seeming semantic mistakes on the part of the reporter ("it should have been "oxide" instead of "oxides", etc), while completely ignoring the main thrust of the article. In his mind, hyper-focusing on the mistakes or hidden bias of the reporter completely invalidated the decision to more comprehensively factor in some health costs in considering pollution legislation.

I don't clearly recall that thread, but isn't that the same one where I was pointing out the author was drawing incorrect conclusions? Where you confused ozone and smog?

There are various forms of nitrogen and oxygen. Some are mostly man made, some are natural, and in equilibrium with other gasses. I think you were misunderstanding what my points were. I do know I kept having to keep you on track between ozone and smog. Ozone is a component of smog, but the two are not interchangeable.


Another was where he flat out stated once that teen pregnancies were much higher these days than when he was growing up, something that proved to be contrary to actual data. When presented with actual data showing the opposite, he started attempting, yet again, to tear down the source, and split hairs on definitions, as if either would somehow support his statement.

Then that evolved to "unplanned" pregnancies, and the ages included what. Early 20's? We were looking at two angles of it. Years ago, high school students didn't plan to have children. Nearly all were "unplanned" pregnancies. Today, many teens intentionally get pregnant to extents never before in the past. It's no longer shameful, but "cool." They can also justify getting the state to pay for them to move away from mommy and/or daddy.

Why do you bring that up after realizing we were arguing two different angles of it, or do you refuse to accept that in preference of making me look bad? Or... are you purposely just slandering me?

[boutons_deux]

Offshore Wind Power Line Wins Praise, and Backing

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/10/12/science/12wind-graphic/12wind-graphic-articleInline.jpg

WASHINGTON — Google and a New York financial firm have each agreed to invest heavily in a proposed $5 billion transmission backbone for future offshore wind farms along the Atlantic Seaboard that could ultimately transform the region’s electrical map.

The 350-mile underwater spine, which could remove some critical obstacles to wind power development, has stirred excitement among investors, government officials and environmentalists who have been briefed on it.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/science/earth/12wind.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

[RandomGuy]

Some things are difficult to prove. If he is so certain that something he never witnessed cannot happen, then what is that based on?

How many things in life have you witnessed, but don't know how to prove what you witnessed?

He is calling me a liar. For that, I demand he put up or shut up.

You are asking him to prove a negative.

I can't prove that, if I hold a book over the floor and let go it will NOT fall, but I can prove that if it were to go up, that would be contrary to our current understanding of gravity.

[MannyIsGod]

Pretty bad ass article.

[boutons_deux]

Google investing in offshore electrical grid aligns with the report a few weeks ago that said such a grid would provide nearly continuous power since always somewhere along the Eastern continental shelf, the wind was blowing.

Such a offshore grid could extend from Boston to Miami.

[RandomGuy]

Google investing in offshore electrical grid aligns with the report a few weeks ago that said such a grid would provide nearly continuous power since always somewhere along the Eastern continental shelf, the wind was blowing.

Such a offshore grid could extend from Boston to Miami.


Yet even before any wind farms were built, the cable would channel existing supplies of electricity from southern Virginia, where it is cheap, to northern New Jersey, where it is costly, bypassing one of the most congested parts of the North American electric grid while lowering energy costs for northern customers.

Seems like a good investment.

If you build it, they will come.

As I have stated before there is enormous potential there, it just takes capital to unlock it, just like anything else.

What we need is the imagination and courage to leap beyond the status quo.

[CosmicCowboy]

It sounds to me like a transmission line from rural coal fired power plants to dense NE urban areas that will get subsidized by "wind energy" tax credits "just in case" wind farms want to tie into the grid.

[MannyIsGod]

You don't think they'd save a lot by building a line like that on land instead of at sea? Fairly certain if you're putting on a condom its because you plan to fuck. :)

[LnGrrrR]

I know there were some issues with windfarms in Cape Cod due to the Kennedys bitching about it.

[CosmicCowboy]

You don't think they'd save a lot by building a line like that on land instead of at sea? Fairly certain if you're putting on a condom its because you plan to fuck. :)

The legal easements would be a nightmare for a new high voltage transmission line in that densely populated region. It's probably easier to do it this way.

[RandomGuy]

It sounds to me like a transmission line from rural coal fired power plants to dense NE urban areas that will get subsidized by "wind energy" tax credits "just in case" wind farms want to tie into the grid.

Wind energy tax credits only really apply, to my knowledge, to actual MW produced, so this isn't quite accurate.

"just in case" is also inaccurate, as there are some projects that are already going ahead, if memory serves.

To me, power transmission lines have a similar function to roads. Both tend to have some add-on effects for the wider economy.

What will definitely happen is that those rural energy users will now be forced to compete with the NE users for available energy, although from the map given I don't see power going from rural to urban, just from urban to urban. The shift may exist, but isn't quite so direct.

The aggregate effect is a net positive though for the wider economy. Moving things from where it is relatively abundant to where it is relatively scarce always does that.

As was noted though, this provides infrastructure that makes wind energy more competitive, and lowers capital barriers to entry for new capacity, since someone who wants to build a windfarm already has ready-made transmissive capacity. This project is, in essence, risk-sharing capitalism.

[Wild Cobra]

I know there were some issues with windfarms in Cape Cod due to the Kennedys bitching about it.
No kidding. That was so ironic. They don't want it in their backyard, which was a perfect place for them, but would force them on other people's back yards...

I fucking hate elitists.

[Wild Cobra]

Offshore Wind Power Line Wins Praise, and Backing

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/10/12/science/12wind-graphic/12wind-graphic-articleInline.jpg

WASHINGTON — Google and a New York financial firm have each agreed to invest heavily in a proposed $5 billion transmission backbone for future offshore wind farms along the Atlantic Seaboard that could ultimately transform the region’s electrical map.

The 350-mile underwater spine, which could remove some critical obstacles to wind power development, has stirred excitement among investors, government officials and environmentalists who have been briefed on it.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/science/earth/12wind.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
I wonder if this like some wind investments I've heard of. Invest $7 million and get $8 million in tax breaks over several years...

Is it really a good capital investment, or a money maker with no risk?

Anyone know the tax detains of this?

[boutons_deux]

"risk-sharing capitalism"

Electricity is a privilege, not a right -- Wild Coconut

I'm much rather such infrastructure such as "interstate electrical highways" be govt financed and operated, just like I never want to see for-profit municipal water companies, esp as Blue Gold disappears.

Enron, El Paso Energy(?), etc really messed up the deregulated electrical energy markets, while dubya's/Repug FERC did nothing and let the free market pillagers get on with their free market pillaging and market gaming. aka, the free market always delivering the best solution (for free market suppliers. free market consumers get screwed)

[Wild Cobra]

Electricity is a privilege, not a right -- Wild Coconut

LOL...

Now you got me laughing over that one.

I am a nut at times. Just ask the woman I love.

[RandomGuy]

I wonder if this like some wind investments I've heard of. Invest $7 million and get $8 million in tax breaks over several years...

Is it really a good capital investment, or a money maker with no risk?

Anyone know the tax [details] of this?


By the time the Interior Department could issue permits for such a line, for example, the federal subsidy program for wind will have expired in 2012, said Willett M. Kempton, a professor at the School of Marine Science and Policy at the University of Delaware and the author of several papers on offshore wind.


In fact, if successful, the transmission spine would reduce the regulatory burden on subsequent projects, said Mr. Mitchell, the Trans-Elect chief executive.

Mr. Kempton of the University of Delaware and Mr. Wellinghoff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said the backbone would offer another plus: reducing one of wind power’s big problems, variability of output.

“Along the U.S. Atlantic seaboard, we tend to have storm tracks that move along the coast and somewhat offshore,” Mr. Kempton said.

If storm winds were blowing on Friday off Virginia, they might be off Delaware by Saturday and off New Jersey by Sunday, he noted. Yet the long spine would ensure that the amount of energy coming ashore held roughly constant.

Wind energy becomes more valuable when it is more predictable; if predictable enough, it could replace some land-based generation altogether, Mr. Kempton said.

But the economics remain uncertain, he warned, For now, he said, the biggest impediment may be that the market price of offshore wind energy is about 50 percent higher than that of energy generated on land.

With a change in market conditions — an increase in the price of natural gas, for example, or the adoption of a tax on emissions of carbon dioxide from coal- or gas-generated electricity — that could change, he said.


If one assumes that the cost of fossil fuels will be rising, the economics will change.

I would make that assertion, and have here.

I would note that will happen even without the much criticized cap and trade or similar taxing scheme.

Again, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, we lock ourselves into a form of power for about 30 years when we build each new power plant.

One might not be able to fully pin down the exact cost of coal in 15 years, but I would be willing to bet, even absent cap/trade/whatever we will see higher prices relative to inflation. Indeed, I will be betting my retirement money on just this happening. :greedy

[RandomGuy]

U.S. Metallurgical Coal and Coke Supplies–Prices, Availability, and the Emerging Futures Markets
by
Richard F. Bonskowski

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/f_p_coal/isspaper.html

There has been no rush to increase mining capacity. In fact, the fewer, larger players in the industry are today more market-savvy and are willing to manage their assets. They will not hesitate to idle or shut down a less profitable mine and to withdraw production from the coal supply pool rather than sell coal at rates of return that may be lower than inflation.


The other major change is that coal is now perceived as being potentially subject to price volatility. This volatility results from the deregulation of commodities closely linked to coal—natural gas, railroads, and the ongoing deregulation of electricity providers. As a result, energy marketers now include coal in their over-the-counter and futures markets.

----------------------

http://www.eia.doe.gov/coal/page/coalnews/images/weekly2/weekly2.jpg

The spike there was due to a corresponding spike in gas prices. Energy prices have become much more interrelated and interchangible.

If oil gets more expensive, so will coal/gas, and vice versa.

Given that all three are approaching, or past their "peaks", there is no reason to think they will get cheaper, relatively, over time, unless demand falls off much faster than supply. Unlikely to happen, barring some massive economic event.

[boutons_deux]

"unless demand falls off much faster than supply. Unlikely to happen, barring some massive economic event."

you don't think the current Banksters' Great Depression isn't some "massive economic event"?

Demand is down all over the world, but commodity traders, certainly in conspiracy with carbon energy extractors/suppliers, are keeping the energy prices way above demand. And the commodity trading is all done in complete secrecy.

[MannyIsGod]

lol...

Now you got me laughing over that one.

I am a nut at times. Just ask the woman i stalk.

fyp

[Wild Cobra]

fyp
Still lying and slandering rather than being intelligent enough to win with facts.

I pity you.

[MannyIsGod]

Its only slander if its not true. You don't think the woman you stalked would call you nuts?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I fucking hate elitists.

This is not surprising consider you have probably been selected last for most everything from your very first social interactions outside of your family.

You are common in just about every sense of the word.

[Wild Cobra]

Its only slander if its not true. You don't think the woman you stalked would call you nuts?
See, there you go. I never stalked the girl I was referring to, nor have I ever stalked someone as the word implies.

You're just a pitiful, slanderous liar. You might fool others, but I know the facts on this topic. Who was there? You or me?

Here you go again diverting a topic rather than having any small portion of capacity to address your point of view with facts.

If you have relevant facts, I'm all ears. Here I though we finally started a rational debate, but you turn to BS. Everyone see's you are incapable of debating me on such a topic, and everyone sees your hatred of me in having to resort in slander, lies, and propaganda.

Admit it. You cannot dispute what I have said. If you can, show me the money. Otherwise, you are showing yourself to be morally bankrupt.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

[boutons_deux]

Massive offshore wind-power backbone inspired by marine scientist's model

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=massive-offshore-wind-power-backbon-2010-10-12&print=true

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol

Whats funny is that it sounds like you made the comment in jest yet he has taken this ultra-defensive stance.

[boutons_deux]

GOP Attacks on Stimulus Wind Power Money: Hot Air


"These ads are completely at odds with reality," says Liz Salerno, director of industry data and analysis for the American Wind Energy Association. "This myth about jobs has just been snowballing. It couldn't be more opposite to the facts."

In a Facebook posting in February that helped inspire the Republican wind-bashing, Sarah Palin claimed that "80% of the $2 billion they spent on alternative energy went to purchase wind turbines built in China." In fact, only 3 of America's 33,000 turbines were built in China.

Iberdrola's projects inevitably provide some jobs for foreigners; the average wind turbine includes 8,000 components, and while the U.S. now supplies most of its own towers and blades, we're still importing electronics and other parts. But most of the jobs created by Iberdrola's U.S. projects are done by its 875 U.S. employees, and by U.S. installers, truckers and steelmakers as well as manufacturers. "The point isn't the name on the polo shirt," Salerno says. "Foreign investment is a good thing — it creates jobs here."

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,2025886,00.html

========

To paraphrase a joke about lawyers:

"How do you know when Repugs are lying? Their lips are moving"

[Wild Cobra]

In fact, only 3 of America's 33,000 turbines were built in China.

I can buy that.

Made in China, Assembled in the USA.

Watch the wording. Unless it is specific, don't jump to conclusions. Parse sentences carefully for what the possibilities are.

[boutons_deux]

I can buy that.

Made in China, Assembled in the USA.

Watch the wording. Unless it is specific, don't jump to conclusions. Parse sentences carefully for what the possibilities are.

You're parsing always biased by your blind ideology. Show us some better, any!, "proof" that the statement is misleading

[boutons_deux]

Here's a TRUTH about the Repugs' anti-American business-friendly votes:

Republicans block ending offshore jobs US tax breaks

U.S. Senate Republicans blocked a Democratic bill on Tuesday to end tax deductions enjoyed by companies that close their U.S. plants and move overseas.

The bill would repeal deferral for companies that close or cut a business in the U.S. and start or expand overseas with the intention of importing goods for sale in the United States.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2821013620100928

[Wild Cobra]

I just did a search of the press releases made by USA wind turbine manufacturers. There are always press releases to get their investors pumped up. This was the only press release i found:

GE Receives $1.4 Billion Contract to Supply Turbines for Largest Wind Farm Ever Built in the US (http://www.gepower.com/about/press/en/2009_press/121009.htm)

Wow... It takes 22.7 acres per nameplate megawatt. They expect only 27% of the rated power as calculated by their expected annual power output.

[Wild Cobra]

You're parsing always biased by your blind ideology. Show us some better, any!, "proof" that the statement is misleading
I'm not offering proof. Only pointing out that the article could be deceptive. I realize that maybe the parts are also built in the USA.

How many times have you see something that says the parts were made one place and assembled another?

I am not the one jumping to conclusion. You are. I see the written words, and understand it could mean several things. It was not specific enough.

[Wild Cobra]

Here's a TRUTH about the Repugs' anti-American business-friendly votes:

Republicans block ending offshore jobs US tax breaks

U.S. Senate Republicans blocked a Democratic bill on Tuesday to end tax deductions enjoyed by companies that close their U.S. plants and move overseas.

The bill would repeal deferral for companies that close or cut a business in the U.S. and start or expand overseas with the intention of importing goods for sale in the United States.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2821013620100928
No, here's the truth. Read the legislation, and tell me if you like it:

S. 3816; To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to create American jobs and to prevent the offshoring of such jobs overseas. (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:s3816pcs.txt.pdf)

For two years, there is incentive to hire workers not needed. After that the workers will probably be laid off on the next president's watch, and the 113th congress' watch. There are already workers being laid off after a similar expired program.