Fifteen Bad Things with Windpower–and Three Reasons Why

[Wild Cobra]

95% efficiency. NINETY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE TIME WIND TURBINES ARE ON LINE.

That's not efficiency. If you go by capacity factor, wind mills vary. Most are between 20% to 40% of nameplate value if I recall correct. Manny is right on this.

[ElNono]

Tell me master-baiter...

What do they use then?

This should tell you:

[MannyIsGod]

You know, I often ignore such silly extreme "take it to the extreme" remarks. You know I am not making such statements like 100% uptime. Then you know that I use the actual definition of subsidy than the modern liberal revised definition also. Will we ever run out of natural gas? We probably will run out of enough of a flow rate to maintain power, but we will never run out. It will just get more expensive, and stop being used as our upcoming technology becomes relatively cheaper.

You must ignore many of your own posts.

[MannyIsGod]

Man, WC comes up with the worst names to call people. Dog, master baiter.

So much fail on so many levels.

[LnGrrrR]

You know, I often ignore such silly extreme "take it to the extreme" remarks. You know I am not making such statements like 100% uptime. Then you know that I use the actual definition of subsidy than the modern liberal revised definition also. Will we ever run out of natural gas? We probably will run out of enough of a flow rate to maintain power, but we will never run out. It will just get more expensive, and stop being used as our upcoming technology becomes relatively cheaper.

Right, but you seemed to imply that because winds occasionally stop, gas is better.

I don't think anyone's denying that wind MAY suddenly die in some areas. However, the places these windfarms would be built would be in areas where winds rarely die, I'm assuming.

For instance, say you have X area with 30 windfarms. The wind may only hit 30 of them 50% of the time, 20 of them 25% of the time, and 10 of them 20 % of the time. 5% of the time the wind suddenly "dies".

So, while windfarms might not be at optimal generation more than 50% of the time, there would still always be some power available 95% of the time. (As you said yourself, even gas doesn't have 100% availability.)

Regarding the cost thing, if gas is too expensive to use, that effectively means it has "run out" for the great majority of people. That's an issue we won't have to worry about with wind farms.

And I wouldn't be surprised if some gas generators relied on the same sort of subsidies that the proposed windfarms would be getting, or at the least, some form of gov fiscal help.

[Wild Cobra]

You're going to have to break your paragraph down for me. I read it several times but my hamster refuses to turn the wheel.

I think Lumpy is misunderstanding the 95% level.

[MannyIsGod]

In any event, the whole situation is a red herring once again irrelevant to the core subject. There have been many posts in here showing that even if it did stop suddenly its a situation easily accounted for.

[MannyIsGod]

I think Lumpy is misunderstanding the 95% level.

You're so damn slow. He already acknowledged that. Thats something you should try. Admitting when you're wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

oops, #16

For Those Near, the Miserable Hum of Clean Energy

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/bu...gewanted=print

Wasn't there a similar article a couple months or so ago?

[Wild Cobra]

You're so damn slow. He already acknowledged that. Thats something you should try. Admitting when you're wrong.

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

[Wild Cobra]

Right, but you seemed to imply that because winds occasionally stop, gas is better.

Well, I do believe that. Other than the subsidized cost, my point centered around not relying on a large enough percentage of wind that the rate of power loss cannot be compensated for. Same goes with the total loss should the wind go to zero.

Lets say we supply like 1% of our total power usage with wind. No big deal, other power generation systems need not instantaneously compensate for any fast changes. Once you cross a certain percentage, and I'm not sure what that would be, you have to have backup power that can compensate at least close to the rate of change, else you will have brownouts, or even blackouts.

I don't think anyone's denying that wind MAY suddenly die in some areas. However, the places these windfarms would be built would be in areas where winds rarely die, I'm assuming.

I agree. Still, that isn't the arguments I got into with others.

For instance, say you have X area with 30 windfarms. The wind may only hit 30 of them 50% of the time, 20 of them 25% of the time, and 10 of them 20 % of the time. 5% of the time the wind suddenly "dies".

Statistically, it would be rare to have the wind die with each. Still, it can happen, but that wasn't my major concern.

So, while windfarms might not be at optimal generation more than 50% of the time, there would still always be some power available 95% of the time. (As you said yourself, even gas doesn't have 100% availability.)

I wouldn't count on 95% of the time, but I would give your assessment a hoigh percentage. Just not quite 95%.

Regarding the cost thing, if gas is too expensive to use, that effectively means it has "run out" for the great majority of people. That's an issue we won't have to worry about with wind farms.

I agree to some extent. However, until we actually build the means to store windmill power efficiently, it will never become a large part of power generation.

And I wouldn't be surprised if some gas generators relied on the same sort of subsidies that the proposed windfarms would be getting, or at the least, some form of gov fiscal help.

Again, definition... I doubt they were technically subsidized. The difference I would argue is that once built, natural gas power plants are cost effective with no subsidies. Wind mills are not.

[Wild Cobra]

This is not true. Do you know what a SVC is? This is a problem that has been dealt with a long, long time ago. Before SVC you had STATCOM and before those, you had STATCON. You can also have overload capacity, which SVCs also deal with. Most SVC use thyristors for switching (which can switch on/off in about 15-20 usec).

Power sources are added and removed from the grid all the time. Look at solar production for an example.

Those devices address switching. The capacity already has to be online. That's a different argument all together.

[Wild Cobra]

This should tell you:

You were not following the conversation. I was saying 120 volts and 240 volts is used in residential dwelling. 120 for most outlets and 240 for the dryer, water heater, range, etc.

Are you going to tell me also that 120/240V is not the nominal USA standard for inside houses?

[ElNono]

Well, I do believe that. Other than the subsidized cost, my point centered around not relying on a large enough percentage of wind that the rate of power loss cannot be compensated for. Same goes with the total loss should the wind go to zero.

Lets say we supply like 1% of our total power usage with wind. No big deal, other power generation systems need not instantaneously compensate for any fast changes. Once you cross a certain percentage, and I'm not sure what that would be, you have to have backup power that can compensate at least close to the rate of change, else you will have brownouts, or even blackouts.

Who suggested that you could deploy wind/solar as primary power without redundancy in place?

Now, if you do have redundancy in place, why wouldn't you deploy it?

[ElNono]

Those devices address switching. The capacity already has to be online. That's a different argument all together.

The capacity is always online when you're talking supplying an alternative to solar/wind. There's no 'seconds to compensate' as you claimed.

[Wild Cobra]

Who suggested that you could deploy wind/solar as primary power without redundancy in place?

Now, if you do have redundancy in place, why wouldn't you deploy it?

Agreed. Now will the rate of other generation ramp up as fast as the wind power can ramp down? Please tell me that you don't plan to have the backup running at capacity when not being used...

[Wild Cobra]

The capacity is always online when you're talking supplying an alternative to solar/wind. There's no 'seconds to compensate' as you claimed.

So we are wasting energy then, and this is all a farce to keep the greens happy?

[Wild Cobra]

Lumpy...

Where are you???

Tell me now, what is the nominal house voltages if it's not 120/240?

[ElNono]

Agreed. Now will the rate of other generation ramp up as fast as the wind power can ramp down? Please tell me that you don't plan to have the backup running at capacity when not being used...

Sure. That's why SVCs are inherently capacitive devices. The smooth the flow of current temporarily while the other source ramps up capacity. Read up on FACTS systems. That's exactly what they do.

[ElNono]

So we are wasting energy then, and this is all a farce to keep the greens happy?

No, you just don't understand how power distribution and capacity compensation work in the real world.

[Wild Cobra]

Sure. That's why SVCs are inherently capacitive devices. The smooth the flow of current temporarily while the other source ramps up capacity. Read up on FACTS systems. That's exactly what they do.

Yes, but again, that's not the argument at hand.

[Wild Cobra]

No, you just don't understand how power distribution and capacity compensation work in the real world.

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

Please stop changing the goalpost.

[ElNono]

You were not following the conversation. I was saying 120 volts and 240 volts is used in residential dwelling. 120 for most outlets and 240 for the dryer, water heater, range, etc.

Are you going to tell me also that 120/240V is not the nominal USA standard for inside houses?

No. I'm not disputing that, in the US, the voltage you have in an outlet is 120v (or 240v in some cases).

That said, power distribution is almost universally 3 phase. From that point onward, you basically break it down into lower voltages using transformers, even inside your house (while you might have devices that use actual 120v or 240v, you also most likely have a lot of devices that have transformers in them and break it down further to 12v, 5v, 3.3v and such).

[ElNono]

Yes, but again, that's not the argument at hand.

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...

[Wild Cobra]

No. I'm not disputing that, in the US, the voltage you have in an outlet is 120v (or 240v in some cases).

That said, power distribution is almost universally 3 phase. From that point onward, you basically break it down into lower voltages using transformers, even inside your house (while you might have devices that use actual 120v or 240v, you also most likely have a lot of devices that have transformers in them and break it down further to 12v, 5v, 3.3v and such).

So we both agree Lumpy is wrong.