How many windmills does it take to turn on a light bulb?
- Thread starter billc
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 1,451
Regretting ever showing you how to post links. 
Archangel M
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,555
- Reaction score
- 154
Which ignores the point...wind energy is a boondoggle.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 1,451
Not really-it's all about siting, expectations, and equipment. In the case of the joke piece (as in, it's really satriical, you know-a joke. I mean "IpeCac?" as in the stuff that makes you barf?) the windmill might have been installed more than "a few years ago," and poorly sited-we don't have that data. All we know is that it didn't produce enough electricity to offset its costs. Compare this to the successful wind farms installed by Xcel energy. The utility considers these a source of energy with low operating and maintenance costs (and federal subsidies) not a "boondoggle." Here in northern New Mexico, wind turbines are an effective way to supplement a home's usage and cut costs, if you can afford their installation.
I do agree with one part of the article, though:
'cause there's no stopping it now.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
My good Sir, this is the Internet - everyone is an Expert.
Archangel M
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,555
- Reaction score
- 154
Hell Im all for wind turbines. Theres a farm of them not far from me. However, claiming that we should not drill for oil, mine coal, build coal/nuke power plants, etc. because wind energy is going to provide it all and "save" us from GW???
Boondoggle.
Boondoggle.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 1,451
Who's saying that? They'd simply be wrong, or deluded, when it comes to the efficacy of wind turbines.
Not drilling for oil, mining coal, and building more power plants have plenty of arguments against them, but a ready replacement for their outputs isn't one of them......yet
Err ... tentatively raises hand ... power systems engineer here ... but noone listens to me on any area where I am expert (economics, history, power control systems), just like your good self on matters of biology.
A most astute point :bows:.
When it comes to the CO2 equation, wind turbines of the current design never 'pay back' their environmental costs, mostly due to the concrete used in their foundations.
They are also highly inefficient, generally returning 30% of rated peak output.
When the subsidies are removed when the fad for them dies down, they will also become uneconomic for the manufacturers.
However, where such things do work is at an individual level. We keep striving for a replacement of the "one big generating plant" that runs from coal/oil/gas/nuclear and, other than some hydro stations, that is just not a practical aim. A cheap, small wind turbine in your garden that links into the grid is a viable option but the corporations don't make a whole lot off that (yet) so it's not really encouraged. That may yet change but for now more nuclear is the answer.
I've said before, all the apparent discourse on the matter is just for show, at least over here in Blighty. We've been in the frame to produce the control systems for all the new nuke plants for quite a few years now.
They are also highly inefficient, generally returning 30% of rated peak output.
When the subsidies are removed when the fad for them dies down, they will also become uneconomic for the manufacturers.
However, where such things do work is at an individual level. We keep striving for a replacement of the "one big generating plant" that runs from coal/oil/gas/nuclear and, other than some hydro stations, that is just not a practical aim. A cheap, small wind turbine in your garden that links into the grid is a viable option but the corporations don't make a whole lot off that (yet) so it's not really encouraged. That may yet change but for now more nuclear is the answer.
I've said before, all the apparent discourse on the matter is just for show, at least over here in Blighty. We've been in the frame to produce the control systems for all the new nuke plants for quite a few years now.
I think wind power has a lot of promise with wide scale deployments, such as Cape Wind off the coast of Rhode Island (last I hear, 200 turbines on a ridge of the North Atlantic). The bulk installations offer much better ROI than onesie twosie installations.
My personal favorite is solar. No moving parts.
My personal favorite is solar. No moving parts.
I quite agree on the solar energy front, Carol :nods firmly:.
Especially the IR ones that work at night as well.
Especially the IR ones that work at night as well.
well, solar does not require extra space: we have plenty of roof tops that don't do anything else. (there is however a safety concern in matters of retro fit: fire fighters hate those, as they are added weight on a structure, plus usually keep producing electricity while the house is burning and the water is falling...)
