----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 9:27 AM Subject: RE: An Inconvenient Truth
> > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Robert Seeberger >> Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 11:38 PM >> To: Killer Bs Discussion >> Subject: Re: An Inconvenient Truth >> > Some wind >> > power will go in, and wind may creep up to 1%-2% of total energy >> > usage in 10 years or so. Other countries, particularly in Asia, >> > will >>> use nuclear power. >> > But, the US will continue to have political debates in which >> > neither >> > party >> > will be able to get anything practical passed. >> > >> >> I'm thinking you too conservative on your wind estimates. There >> have >> been some sea changes in the wind industry in just the last 5 >> years. >> >> Texas in particular seems poised to take the nations lead in wind >> power generation. >> Wind looks to make 15% of Texas energy at best in just a few years. > > I read through the quoted articles, maybe I missed one or two, and > have a > few things to note. > > First of all, all power usage is not electricity. So, the > optimistic 15% of > electricity usage is really 6%. I'm thinking I follow you here, but it might be best if you are more explicit and show the reasoning behind 15% becoming 6%. As I understand things there are 2 arenas for wind energy in Texas, West Texas and the offshore projects. They operate quite differently and have to be considered seperately. > > Second, the quote I think you are referring to indicates 10,000 out > of > 77,000. So the optimistic number is closer to 13%. The only reason > this is > important is that, using 13%, we get close to 5% of total energy. I think it is 10,000 MW on top of the 77,000 MW, so the percentage is even lower. > > Third, the sites you refer to are either promotional sites or > articles that > quote only the promoters. Yeah.....that was intentional. I wanted to show that there is a strong business climate for wind energy primarily and secondly to show that it has been in the news here frequently enough that the projects are known commonly. I would expect that you have heard of the projects yourself. > Important information isn't given. For example, > is the power output that is quoted the capacity, or the expected > average > output? Just as with other power plants the numbers reflect capacity. Capacity is usefull, but I think we both understand that it is not necessarily reflective of overall utility. > If it is the former, then it cannot be used to determine the > fraction of the total power output....since that number is dependant > on the > wind speed. That is not entirely accurate. I'll have to look for some generator information when I get more time. IIRC some of the newer generator designs work with a constant speed governor so that they always run at optimal RPMs or something to that effect. Otherwise you get great variation in power output and that makes wind power not so usefull. I'll get back with you on this. > I'll look some more, but I have a beer that says that, given > two numbers...both of which have some validity...marketing people > will quote > the number that looks better for them. Well of course, but don't all power generating companies have marketing people? I understand what you are getting at but think it is early in the game to (1) dismiss every claim, and (2) anticipate that there is some conspiracy between government and wind power advocates and the news media. After all, there is at least one country in Europe that gets the majority of its power from wind. They can do something we cannot? > > Fourth, optimistic projections by marketing need to be taken with a > 100 kg > bag of salt. One has to extend the time frame and cut the amount. > My usual > rule of thumb for something that's doable is multiply time by 2 and > divide > the promised output by 2. So, 3% of Texas energy in 10-15 years is > what I'd > take from the articles....and this is probably peak capacity. > Well.....the brag is that Texas, Kansas, and North Dakota could supply *all* the nations electrical power just with wind. Heh! I'm not that unrealistic. But I do feel that it is worth a shot. Not because it will be all encompassing for our energy needs, but because every MW of wind power used is that many barrels of Middle Eastern oil we won't need to purchase til later. Wind power should be complimentary to our other sources of electricity. My take on things goes like this: West Texas wind energy is only reliable at night, so at night it gives power producers an opportunity to power down somewhat or direct power to other pursuits. (Such as giant icemakers that freeze water at night that will be used to air condition buildings during the day. I've seen these being built here and Reliant Energy subsidizes their construction. It helps energy providers to "time shift" their output to off peak hours and minimize output during peak hours) Texas Offshore wind energy is reliable during daylight hours, so it helps energy providers to maintain capacity above peak usage during peak hours. This would be a boon to a large city like Houston where we face potential brownouts in the afternoons. Energy prices in Houston are higher these days and are close to par with wind energy. Wind energy is cheaper than Natural Gas provided electrical power in Austin these days (purportedly). It could come to pass that the same will occur in Houston. We get our power here from natural gas, coal, oil, and nuclear. Wind should be a useful compliment to those even though it is doubtful that it will ever be a mainstay. Now if the plug-in-Hybrids ever become popular we will need a good deal more capacity, and if that capacity comes from a less polluting source then that's a good thing. xponent Mixed Bag Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
