Wind Power.

[Bogey]

It now seems that wonks in Washington D.C. have  figured out cheap energy.  The Energy Department has a unit known as ' The National Renewable Energy Laboratory.  They believe 20% of the North Easts energy can be generated by wind.   Hummmmm,  guess they will be harnessing all the hot air  produced by Washington's bureaucrats.   Finally something usefull.

And this can be possible for the modest sum of.....$90,000,000,000.  Thats 90 billion dollars folks.   Cheap at twice the cost.


BTW, wonks is not a typo.

[shearload]

The way I read it, the plan is to hook up the Eastern HALF of the US, except for Texas (if you consider Texas an Eastern state).  Kansas, Oklahoma, etc. would be included.  Roughly, everything East of the Rocky Mountains.  Last I checked with my neighbors, they didn't act like Northeasterners.

I wonder how much the TVA would cost today?  Or Hoover Dam, and all those dams in the Northwest?  And the power grids that distribute the power from them?  Over at least double the geographical area?  I would be surprised if $90B would cover it.

On the list of names of contributors to the study, I saw lots of experience in power production and distribution.  Would those be the wonks?

Shearload

[Bogey]

Well,  you have your opinion and I have mine.    I don't consider the mid- west the East.

Further more the TVA,  the Hoover Dam and "all those dams in the North East"  nor the " power grids that distribute the power"  would not be built today due to unreasonable demands pushed by rabid enviromentalists.    When was the last hydro-electric dam built???   And forget building the infrasture to distribute the power from source to end use customers.


And a  list of names as  contributors is meaningless.

And if you want a "wind farm" in your neighborhood then fine.    But do they produce power when the wind does not blow???.

[shearload]

Okay.  I don't consider the Midwest as the East, either.  That was my point.  As I understand your original post, you stated that the plan was to spend $90B to bring wind power to the Northeast.  I pointed out that the study covered using wind power, in various mixes of on and offshore turbines, from the Atlantic to the Rockies.

Have you read the report?  You seem to have an odd idea about what it says.  And you don't seem to care much whether the people who wrote knew what they were writing about.

Have you ever spent much time in Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Oklahoma, or West Texas?  There aren't many days of the year when the wind doesn't blow.  And "rabid environmentalists" have been pushing development of wind power for years.  I suspect that's the primary reason you oppose it.  The problem is development a system to get the power from the plains to the cities.  And I take it that you are against spending any money to move the power from, say, the Dakotas to Chicago.

You would rather keep sending the money to the Middle East, or keep cutting off the mountain tops in West Virginia?

If the money is your primary concern, check out the average cost of a coal-fired electrical plant nowadays.  They start at over $2B.  It would take a lot  more than 45 of them to produce the power that can be produced from wind on the Great Plains.

My point about the TVA and other hydropower projects (in the NORTHWEST) was that, overall, they returned a lot of power for the cost, and turned out to be a good investment.  But I think you knew that.  

[North Pack]

Any government study has to be viewed "very carefully", - when an administration (any administration) wants to get "something off the ground" a study pops up confirming the idea as feasible. Politics being what it is, - we, as a country are NOT about to put a zillion turbines in ANY area. Hell, it's damn windy off the New England coast - try putting a couple off Cape Cod, even without Ted Kennedy to step in, - and see what happens. ... Any study that conveniently shows up, - has to be taken with the same grain of salt as the global warming studies. - From a practicable point of view, geo-thermal makes more sense than wind or solar. It's there 24/7/365 - just like nuclear, coal or gas.

[shearload]

"Politics being what it is, - we, as a country are NOT about to put a zillion turbines in ANY area."

I don't know how far you are from West Texas; if you can, buy yourself an airline ticket and fly over it.  Then come back to us and see if you can still make that statement.  You should see approximately a zillion turbines in short order.

Then fly over western Kansas, eastern Colorado, Nebraska, and the Dakotas. There aren't many folks per square mile, and most wouldn't mind the extra income from leasing space for wind turbines.

The problem is lack of transmission lines.  Development has been rapid until this year, when credit dried up for many of the entrepreneurs.  Turbine sales have slowed, too.  I don't work in that industry, but know some folks who do.  They figure sales will recover in a few years, when credit starts to flow again and the government makes up its mind whether developing wind power is a good idea.

Politics being what it is, we as a country don't necessarily make logical decisions.  We parrot views of others, without knowing all the facts or thinking things through (or reading a study before dismissing it out of hand).

Read the study, then let's discuss it.

[North Pack]

When 20% or more of the northeast's power requirement is met through wind power from the south and mid-west give me a call. I'm not likely to hold my breath. Any power put out by those will be used a LOT closer to home, and not in Boston or New York. - There's plenty of wind a LOT closer, a few miles off the east coast - it's just NOT going to happen.

[gamo2hammerli]

Apparently those big propeller blades take out quite a few hawks, owls, eagles (Basically wildbirds) etc. every day.  Wonder why no one mentions that......

Some residents near those "wind turbines/propellers" complain they're getting headaches and dizzy spells.

[North Pack]

Those things are "bird guillotines" - seriously.  For many on the left this does cause some REAL sleepless nights. There have been protests in a few spots, Mass., New York State & Maine for starters, but  it's their noise and ugliness that most folks aren't too crazy about.

[daveshoot]

I think wind is great for farm or rural electric use. Power entire regions? No, thanks. We have a lot of wind farms here in CA, and I have seen them in Europe. To me, they represent a form of visual pollution, but more importantly, I don't think they will ever be as efficient as solar, or (better yet) nuclear energy. I also don't think they have ever cost-justified here.

The true cost of wind power is hard to come by, and often buried in wishful thinking and good intentions. It is material and maintenance intensive, and provides fluctuating levels of power. It uses huge areas of real estate, but doesn't yield as much per acre as solar.The proponents cite the growing number of windmills as a measure of their success, but this is driven largely by green government subsidies. I don't think you would find many power providers investing in them voluntarily.

I think by the time a national or regional grid of wind power was established, the money and research could have gone into safe nuke construction and inspection. This just seems like the most intelligent application of resources, and I'd prefer to see funding going to solving issues of safety and disposal. Really the emotions should be taken out of all these alternatives and let the calculator tell the story.

[shearload]

"When 20% or more of the northeast's power requirement is met through wind power from the south and mid-west give me a call."

As noted earlier, the study covers most of the US east of the Rockies.  What the Northeast does or does not do is fairly insignificant, overall.  What you folks decide to do about power won't have much impact nationwide.  Do you guys still burn oil for heating?

[North Pack]

Oil, coal, natural gas and a lot of wood, ...

[shearload]

"To me, they represent a form of visual pollution, but more importantly, I don't think they will ever be as efficient as solar, or (better yet) nuclear energy. I also don't think they have ever cost-justified here."

Give us an idea what you think solar or nuclear power will cost per gigawatt to develop, produce and deliver (full life cycle).  Then get back with us on cost.  It would be helpful, too, if you would give us a realistic prediction of when solar and nuclear assets would be ready.  I agree that, long-term, these methods should be developed.  But they don't offer much short-term benefit (within the next fifty years or so).

As for visual pollution, how do you think fields of solar collectors are going to look?  It's going to take millions of acres of them, and the land will pretty much be useless for other purposes.  Deserts, which some consider wasted land, are offered as prime locations for solar power; it may be part of the solution for areas west of the Rockies, but he study is more focused on practical, available energy sources for those of us east of the Rockies.

It would be interesting to see what the standard issue Midwestern hailstorm would do to a field of solar collectors.

[North Pack]

Obviously not to be located in earthquake zones, - aside from that, ...
.
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/product.html