Comments on: Wind Energy Gets A Lift In New Report

Government Report Says Turbines Could Be On Par With Nuclear As Energy Source By 2030

dragonwagon5, icing is solved by the heat that is generated on the turbines, and due to the fact that some pretty smart mechanical engineers are using basic gear reduction to keep the turbines at a constant speed. Next question...

[rf35]

Don''t mistake my last post for being "anti-wind." I think we should use wind and solar to theit max potential...I''m just saying that''s not enough.

My house is all electric and my highest bill last summer was 78 dollars, and we had several days of 100 plus degree temps.

We have plenty of electricity and we''re on wind power. Too bad you are too stupid to realize that.

[rf35]

The problem with solar and wind is that it is just not productive enough to meet the large-scale needs of the entire country. We need nuclear. The waste is now recycled. Look at France. They are virtually 100% nuclear and have no problems with waste disposal because they recycle and reuse it. Well, I guess it proves that even the French are smarter than us dum ole ''Mericans.

[caldwellptr]

The debate over Wind Power reminds me of an old joke - "How many people opposed to Wind Power does it take to power a light bulb? None, they are happy just sitting there in the dark."

mediapreachr, seems to me these birds have eyes, and if they see something in the way that is stationary, they will move. If they do get caught up in the blades, then they must be some pretty stupid birds. Nuclear power is too unsafe and causes a waste problem. You are actually thinking we want this waste product buried? What about the water table and the soil contamination? Solar and wind power is the best alternative.

[rf35]

Posted by mitchoncbs at 12:03 PM : May 13, 2008

Thanks. That''s a fair distance from where I live, but I guess it''s a start.

[mediapreachr]

By the way,birds and rodents are not going to like your glorified wind towers.
Thousands of feathered creatures are cut to shreds every year in California.
Also who''s gonna take care of hundreds of miles of buried cable and haul away the carcasses of the critters who chewed on the cables?
It''s time to make a distinction-what is better:
-Nuclear engineer and tech jobs-highly paid and a real career;or
-Useless,pandering bureaucrats,no better than the priestly class of the old(who were praying on the beliefs of the poor).

[mediapreachr]

Wind power?
Listen to the arguments brought by the wanna be activists.What happened to US science graduates?
Oh,they''re commodity traders now...
The current situation(paying high prices for basic items and food)requires more than one party-oil futures traders(gamblers)and Sierra Club activists(non-productive members of society who are glorified bureaucrats).
Start building nuclear reactors now.Close the heating oil plants as you build nclear rectors.
The waste is to be buried in a chamber beneath the plant to be reused or sold accordingly.
All the counter arguments are based on the reader''s ignorance-the new design reactor is better,safer,more efficient than its 70''s model.
Build your own (american made)today-or you''ll be forced to buy one foreign made(Toshiba is working on a fast breed model right now)tomorrow.

I just don''t understand how another state can own it. That sux, because those people are buying their energy from Florida....

rt35, here is your answer to that:

The New Mexico Wind Energy Center, the state''s most ambitious renewable energy project, officially went online Oct. 1, 2003. The center is the seventh-largest wind generation project in the United States.

Located 170 miles southeast of Albuquerque and 20 miles northeast of Fort Sumner, the wind center is perfectly suited for eastern New Mexico''s windy landscape. Power production does not require water, produce emissions or generate solid waste.

The wind center consists of 136 turbines, each standing 210 feet high. The facility can produce up to 200 megawatts of power, or enough electricity to power 94,000 average-sized New Mexico homes.

Florida-based FPL Energy owns and manages the facility, while PNM purchases all of its output.

In May 2003, PNM was awarded the 2003 Utility Leadership Award from the American Wind Energy Association. The award recognized PNM''s commitment to renewable energy and its contribution to the advancement of wind energy.

[rf35]

Someone needs to build some wind farms in my area. A small farm could power the entire county. Eastern New Mexico has more then its fair share of wind, yet I''ve seen no wind farms in this part of the state.

[a1pctech]

Simple solution all old and any new cell towers (usually located at the highest spot around) have wind %u2013 solar generators placed on them to power both the cell phone station and attached to the power grid cutting both green house and nuclear needs.
This would solve two problems those ugly towers would now be a thing worth looking at and the power plants would be spread across the county in places were the power is needed instead of on our beeches or our mountain ranges that are far from were the powers is need the whole country would be out to catch the wind traveling from the west to the east and the sun from the east to the west. Their would be POWER going IN From both sources at all times of day and night with the avenger wind at 10 mph across the US and 17 hours of sun adding to this how could we lose especially if the solar collectors are placed on both sides of wind blades.

: ? Bright Ideas start from a seed and grow. Just think about it.

[perrycbs1]

For those wondering why, if Nuclear Power is such a good option, that Wall Street (and Bankers) are not willing to fund new plants.

That too is a good question; and the answer is why the US Government had to offer loan guarantees.

The fact is that Bankers around the world are more than happy to fund nuclear power plants. They are funding them in about 20 countries right now. Just not the US.

In the US in the 1980s the regulators created quite the regulatory mess. Approving plants to be built; then changing the rules while the plant was being built; and sometimes just suspending a project for no good reason. The result is that the average construction time line and cost tripled, and companies and bankers lost lots of money.

In the rest of the world a nuclear power plant takes 6 to 8 years to build once a decision is made. The costs are well known. No one knows how long it will take in the US. Current estimates are 10 years. The Government has offered the loan guarantees as a method of convincing companies to try the new regulatory process so they can show it works.

If the NRC can demonstrate a reasonable and predictable regulatory process (and cost) for approval and licensing; then the floodgates of financing in the US will open.

[perrycbs1]

I forgot that this posting program does not recognize "dashes." A clearer posting of the last line is:

A Nuclear power plant is expected to cost about 4.6 to 5.5 cents per KWHr to build and operate over its 60 year life.

Addition comment:

The reason so many countries are building nuclear power plants in the world is because of how cheap they really are over their life.

Somewhat pricey to build, but relatively cheap to operate (although "clean coal" plants are about the same amount to build).

I note also that other countries have dealt with the waste issue adequately as well, and that its disposal cost is included in the cost of operation. The US seems locked in a political tussle on the waste issue. Their are several different commonly accepted methods in the world for dealing with it; without causing a huge problem for future generations.

[perrycbs1]

alphaa10 ask:

PerryCBS1 said, "Wind power is costly to build, and right now receives huge government subsidies..."
---
"Huge" relative to what?

Good question.

New wind turbines receive between 2.5 and 3 cents per KWH subsidy on their theoretical capacity. This is a combination of a Production Tax Credit (currently about 2 Cents per KWH), accelerated depreciation (about 1/2 Cents per KWH), and various subsides that states are forcing the utility customers to pay.

The nuclear plant loan guarantees are only expected to cost the government about 2% to administer them - or about $370 Million. No one is expecting that these loans will not be paid off.

That amount of loans will build at least 3000 MW of nuclear (and probably twice that):

3000 MW, 60 years, 90% capacity factor, $370 Million subsidy = 0.00026 cents per KWHR subsidy.

When you consider that wind turbines have a capaciy factor in the range of 30 - 33%. The reality is that there is between 7.5 and 9 cents of subsidy for each KWHR generated. Add the expected life of 20 years (which no one has actually demonstrated yet) - and the subsidy (assuming that the replacements will also be subsidized) is between 22.5 and 27 cents per KWHR on a 60 year basis.

Overall, new wind power is currently being subsidized at a rate of about 100,000 times that of new nuclear power.

A Nuclear power plant is expected to cost about 4.6 %u2013 5.5 cents per KWHr to build and operate over its 60 year life.

We use partial wind power from our electric company, and we get somewhere between 45 and 65 dollars a month credited to our bill. So whomever said it was fake is a moron.

[juwboy]

cyberus = no sense of humor

[cyberus-2009]

-----
If you drive past a wind farm, the blades are either stationary or all are turning at the same rate regardless of the wind speed.

These observations have convinced me that wind farms are fakes intended to convince gullible people that they are generating electricity.

The spindles of the blades aren''''t fitted with generators -- they''''re actually electric motors to make blades move.

Posted by juwboy
----

Current tech wind turbines have a minimum speed at which they''ll turn .. and a maximum effective speed that usually not very far from minimum.