----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 6:42 PM Subject: RE: An Inconvenient Truth
> > >> -----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). Question: How is that usefull if we are strictly talking about electrical usage? Question 2: What other forms of power are you including in that sum? > >> 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%. And up! Remember this is currently a growth area so there is room for percentile improvement before new growth becomes marginally profitable or productive. > > >> 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. > It is an interesting subject. There is growth in usage and improvements in technology. More heads seem to be giving wind and other alt.en. modes consideration due to high energy costs. Oil is a useful and precious substance, so when alternatives to burning it up pop up it usually attracts my attention. > >> 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. On that later<G> > >> 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? Just another item to look up. I read it in the last few weeks, so I should be able to find it again. Then again I may be conflating the Iceland situation................ >> > 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. D'pends on how it gets used don't you think? Suppose we (as I wrote below in my last post) are charging our cars at night [substantially credited to wind power] and taking the edge off the afternoon peak we will be doing something productive that will not hurt (as in our pocketbooks) much at all. It might make other methods that will be costly a bit more bearable. And if we are at the same time expoting this tech to the third world and other trading partners........ Maybe I'm wrong, but I think these kinds of things work synergistically. The way energy storage technology is improving it may be a whole new world in 20 years, but that is simply an unbridled statement of optimism<G>. > > >> 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.... Tangent: Hydrogen is fairly energy poor pound for pound. As much as I like hydrogen it seems a waste of energy when you could just power whatever directly with electricity. > >> >> 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? > Well to be honest I see nano-manufactured lithium-ion batteries and ultra capacitors in cars coming too. I see a world where people for the most part do not miss their ICE autos very much and homes are not heated with incandescent light bulbs. I see more energy independence and people living off the grid because they don't like the way the energy giants treat them. It will all take time and any time frame we set for the purpose of discussion is arbitrary. I think it mostly depends on the progress of storage technology. When you can generate power when you can and use it when you want, then that becomes an impetus to gain sustainable energy. xponent Current Events Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
