> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Robert Seeberger > Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 6:01 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: An Inconvenient Truth > > > ----- 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%.
15% of electricity usage translates to 6% of power usage because electricity represents 40% of power consumption (.15*.4=.06). > 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. OK > > > > 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. OK, so that gives us optimistic numbers of 4.6%. > 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. I have, but I haven't looked to see them listed as you have. > 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. That's where I was going. > > 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. You should still get great variation in power output. A 20 mph wind has 64x the power of a 5 mph wind, and 8x the power of a 10 mph wind. If the power generated is constant over a decent range of wind velocities, then it must be set at the power generated at the lower end of the range. What I think you are referring to is a constant RPM, but variable load...so more power is generated at higher wind speeds. > Well of course, but don't all power generating companies have > marketing people? Certainly...and I'm using my standard marketing skepticism. I'm not calling them liars, I think they are telling the truth. > 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? Are you sure? Which one? At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_energy we see that Germany, the biggest user in Europe, has wind power as 6% of its capacity. Denmark, is listed at http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2791 as having 20% of it's electricity capacity from wind. But, if we look at http://ens.dk/sw14294.asp we have this quote: <quote> In 2004, wind-power production accounted for 18.5% of domestic electricity supply against 15.8% the previous year; wind turbines produced 23.7 PJ of electricity, which amounts to 2.9% of corrected gross energy-consumption. 2004 was close to being a normal wind year. <end quote> Look at the two numbers: 18.5% of supply, but only 2.9% of corrected gross energy consumption. That's not just the 40% of energy as electricity...2.9% is 15%-16% of 18.5%. I think this illustrates the difference between the production/capacity ratios between wind and more conventional sources of electricity. > > 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. It's worth doing.....I have no problem with the 1.5c/kWh subsidy that the Feds. are giving, nor with the 'Ledge's incentive packages....I'm just saying that we can't count on more than a few percent from this source. >Wind power should be complimentary to our other sources of electricity. Agreed....I'm just pointing out that it will have minimal impact on global warming. > 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) Or, if we go to hydrogen cars....then wind farms would be very good sources of the power needed to create hydrogen.... > > 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. There's that too. So, we agree that the increase in wind power usage is a good thing. Do we agree on the likely impact? If not, how do you see wind supply, say, 8% of energy needs? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
