Wind Energy

[Bubba]

I would say it is a "no-brainer!" Take the money, if it is like the ones in Gray County, they just lease the area that each generator is on, the land owner can still farm up to the leased area. Or have it in CRP or whatever...

[88-31-10]

Originally Posted by Bubba

How do you plan on running your lights and computer when the wind isn't blowing? With wind generators, no wind=no power. Also, too much wind(>45-50mph) also equals no power.

At no time did I say we could replace all generation with wind power. I do think it needs to be part of a generation portfolio. It is a relatively new technology. As time goes on I think storage solutions will be developed that will allows us to economically store the power produced by wind during off peak hours and use it when the demand is highest. However, until then we need a mix of generation types.

[88-31-10]

Originally Posted by ksgrainman

Wind energy in NOT cheaper than coal generated power, nor is Muslim oil cheaper than Ethanol.

What is the cost difference between wind power and coal power?

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by 88-31-10

...However, until then we need a mix of generation types.

And we do! At this time, in our part of the country, wind accounts for between 5-10% of the total produced. Ahead of what the government wants it to be by this time period.

[Flying Dutchman]

It's not that new of a technology 88. What is new is the capacity of batteries to hold the power. It is my understanding the energy produced goes right into the grid and is not stored.

It is a shame that the cheapest and most cost effective energy source is not used, that being nuclear. Or, if we lived in Iceland and could tap into it, thermal energy.

[88-31-10]

Originally Posted by Bubba

And we do! At this time, in our part of the country, wind accounts for between 5-10% of the total produced. Ahead of what the government wants it to be by this time period.

I believe Kansas is ranked as the third windiest state although I don't think we are third in production (yet). This makes it an excellent place to put the wind generation. What limits us, at this time, it the transmission lines to move the power produced. An even more important issue is who is going to pay for the transmission lines.

[Made in the USA]

Originally Posted by Bubba

Also energy storage problems. If you installed enough solar panels on the roof of your house to just run your house, it would cost you tens of thousands of dollars, at the least, and you would have to have a whole room dedicated to nothing but batteries to store the power to use it when you needed it.

The project that i saw was many acres of solar panels providing power direct to the grid. It was enough that it could eventually generate enough power to run the entire state.

Originally Posted by Bubba

How do you plan on running your lights and computer when the wind isn't blowing? With wind generators, no wind=no power. Also, too much wind(>45-50mph) also equals no power.

The wind is "always blowing" around here on the DodgeBoard!

Originally Posted by ksgrainman

Great responses so far, thanks to you all. I am not putting in my own wind power, this is a company wanting to lease some land I have to develope a huge wind farm. Wind energy in NOT cheaper than coal generated power, nor is Muslim oil cheaper than Ethanol. Have been in meetings all last week and more to come. It is BIG money, at least for what I am used to.Thank you all for the input, keep it coming.

Grainman, is this the project SE of Dodge??

Originally Posted by Flying Dutchman

It's not that new of a technology 88. What is new is the capacity of batteries to hold the power. It is my understanding the energy produced goes right into the grid and is not stored.

It is a shame that the cheapest and most cost effective energy source is not used, that being nuclear. Or, if we lived in Iceland and could tap into it, thermal energy.

Into the grid. Batteries can be used as backup, when the sun isn't shining. I don't understand the US being against the nuclear power. I think the main problem with it is the disposal of the spent material. Heck, we could ship it to the MIddle East!

Originally Posted by 88-31-10

I believe Kansas is ranked as the third windiest state although I don't think we are third in production (yet). This makes it an excellent place to put the wind generation. What limits us, at this time, it the transmission lines to move the power produced. An even more important issue is who is going to pay for the transmission lines.

I;m not sure about Kansas, but Dodge City is the "windiest city in the Nation"! Average wind speed in DC is around 16 mph.

[88-31-10]

Originally Posted by Flying Dutchman

It's not that new of a technology 88. What is new is the capacity of batteries to hold the power. It is my understanding the energy produced goes right into the grid and is not stored.

It is a shame that the cheapest and most cost effective energy source is not used, that being nuclear. Or, if we lived in Iceland and could tap into it, thermal energy.

I wrote that wind technology is RELATIVELY new. It was used 100 years ago to pump water from the ground, but only recently have advances been made in turbine technology and computer controls that make is economically feasible to place 100-200 towers and turbines on a wind farm.

You are correct in that the power is put on the grid as it is produced. It is not stored. In fact every time you turn on a light, a television, a computer, or any electric device, a generator somewhere increases it's output to meet the load. The power is produced on demand. There is no storage of electricity as there is with say, natural gas. My belief is that storage technologies will eventually come on line that will allow for mass storage of the power produced by windfarms. This will address the issue of no power when there is no wind. The power will be produced whenever the wind blows. If there is more generation than load, the excess will be stored. When there is load but no generation, the power will be drawn from the storage device(s).

Now when will this happen and what will the technology be I can't say. But I do know that it is going to take a commitment of money and talent to bring to fruition things such as this. But, as long as this country sees fit to spend BILLIONS of our dollars blowing up and rebuilding shit in a part of the world where we have absolutley no business being, the timeframe for these types of technologies becomes stretched farther and farther.

[aft_lizard01]

Wind Energy is one of the clean technologies I can get behind. While initial cost outlays are high, as is the case with most power plants, I believe over the long haul they have a net positive effect. They have a more stable production of electricity over solar power, minimum wind is 8 mph(which is why they have them so high in the air, you get a more stable wind at 200 feet or so than at near ground level) while maximum wind is an issue most of the time they still operate in the threshhold. I also believe the environmental impact is less than solar panels which are grouped close together on the ground in large groups that can disrupt entire eco-systems, need larger energy storage solutions than any other medium. Of course none of them come close to Nuclear power in capacity, new technology makes waste renewable(see breeder reactors). Frankly it is a crime that nuclear tech. isnt used more in this nation.

[Army_of_One]

Originally Posted by aft_lizard01

Frankly it is a crime that nuclear tech. isnt used more in this nation.

I agree...people just worry about something like Chernobyl happening..lol