Wind mills? Not to be contrary but in Minnesota the only reason they are economical is that the power companies have been forced to provide 10% of energy from renewable sources. So they put up wind mills and lease the land from farmers. Some farmers spend the $700,000 plus and buy their own and sell the power to the grid and make money. In certain parts of the state, in the high and windy areas, the landscape is littered for miles with these ugly wind mills. Half of them are always down for maintenance which is high. They really ruin the landscape but the greenies and the farmers love them.
dagosa, you cannot compare global warming with the depletion of the ozone layer. The depletion of the ozone layer was 100% man made. Once we removed the source of the depletion, nature took over and repaired the damage. Global warming is a natural cycle of which we are making a significant contribution, all we can do is try to minimize that contribution, we will not stop it or reverse it. Those are facts, not CYA’s
TSM, get ready to embrace nuclear power in one form or another because either we use it or we move back into caves. We will run out of bio fuels eventually. Wind and solar will help, but wind at least will never be our sole source for electricity. Solar holds out hope if the cost can be brought down, but right now it is running about $200/MWH. Since electricity sells for about $80/MWH, a utility won’t make a profit from solar, Not right now.
If the cost of solar panels and inverters can be brought down and if utility companies can get used to a distributed supply system and adequate and economical mass storage can be made, then solar could become a significant source of power in the future.
Rod, you come up with interesting questions. Two years ago, I did some work at a new windfarm. This particular area has a lot of windfarms because the wind is so steady there and I got to see wind generators that date back to the earliest attempts to some of the latest “clippers”.
The early small generators were simply connected to the grid. The power from the grid stabilized the generators and synced them to the grid. I suspect that they stole a lot of power from the grid to accomplish this so their contribution was not very much. But like any technology, you have to make mistakes in order to find out what the mistakes are so you can learn.
The small windmills also used small blades turning at high speed which was and still is harmful to birds.
The new generation of wind generators are called “clippers” because of their size. They are often 400’ tall with 160’ blades and generate about 2.5MVA (megawatts, sort of). There even some going as high at 4MVA either in production or preproduction. The blades turn very slowly so birds are not harmed. The generator is very much like an automobile alternator. It generates three phase AC which is rectified into a DC and then fed to an inverter at the base of the tower.
The inverter draws some power from grid to determine the phase angle and provide the exciting current for the generator. It then generates a three phase, 690 volt, 60 cycle AC that is synchronized with the grid from the rectified current of the generator. There is a three phase transformer outside the base of the tower that steps up the voltage to 34,500 volts and that is feed to a substation the steps that up to 115kV to feed to the transmission system (grid).
Wind power is economical if viewed in the long term. Its like hydroelectric in some ways. The issue is that those who are against it say that it is only economically feasible if subsidized by the government. They are looking for a payback in 7 years or less. If this same thinking was applied to hydroelectric, it would never have gotten off the ground. It took government subsidies and a long horizon before they provided payback. Wind power will do the same. Unfortunately there just isn’t enough wind to provide for all our needs and more than there are enough rivers for that either.
Interesting article, Mike. While I’ve heard of thorium before, I know nothing about it. If it’s a nuclear fission process, and produces highly radioactive waste, than I’m agsinst it. It might be a better option to the current nuclear plants, but something being safe only relative to something else that can cause such massive and long lasting destruction doesn’t win it my vote.
I think I’ll try to do some research into thorium power.
The process is quite complex, Keith. I appreciate your explanation which was considerably more informative than anything I have found in my searches. How efficient are the generators? But, of course, the wind is free and there is nothing left to dispose of beyond the windmill but can the total cost, including all maintenance and repairs ever be amortized to make the wind farms worthwhile? Or will they remain subsidized “feel good” farms.
Wind and solar power is highly subsidized everywhere at this point. Solar costs are dropping fast through better technology, but wind efficiencies are hard to improve on. I spent some time in Holland (the windmill country, lots of wind) this last year and they have some modern windmills, but the bulk of their power comes form burning antural gas in very efficient opower plants. Such plants generate about 1/3 the CO2 per kilowatt-hour as coal fired plants, which the USA is now phasing out gradually due to the availability of cheap natural gas.
CO2 generation in the US is dropping and will further drop with the new EFA CAFE regs, as well as the complete phase-out of coal buring plants. Keep in mind the US did not sign the Kyoto Protocol, nor did it listen to Al Gore!
In fact, coal use is on the INCREASE in holier-than-thou Europe, because it is a cheaper fuel than imported Liquified Naturaul Gas(LNG), and Europe is phasing out nuclear power in a number of countries, with the notable exception of France, which has the world’s most reliable and efficient nuclear system.
I believe that research should continue to be funded in all areas of energy conversion. However, solar shows the most promise in low cost energy converison. We will see the day when a steep roofed house completely clad in solar panels will generate its own power and be connected to a smart grid and feed power back into it. It will also power your plug-in hybrid vehicle. But that’s at least 30 years out, so in the mean time we have to refine our current systems.
Keep in mind that electric lights were once an expensive luxury only the rich could afford. As was “town gas” for lighting and cooking.
Starting in 2005 our family, using 1990 as a base, reduced our heating demand by 42%, our electric demand by 35%, and our gasoline use by 40%. None of this involved anything very high tech and not a single solar cell.
I know nothing about it. If it's a nuclear fission process, and produces highly radioactive waste, than I'm agsinst it
It IS radioactive…but NOT no where near as bad as a uranium reactor. Thorium is EXTREMELY abundant. Go outside and pick up a rock…chances are there’s Thorium in it.
Thorium reactors were researched from the beginning. It was abandoned because the uranium reactors have a byproduct to make nuclear weapons. Thorium doesn’t. So they abandoned research because they wanted the byproduct.
India and China are right now leading the world in research into Thorium reactors.
Keith, you’ve written an excellent post. As regards nuclear power, I’m not sure it’s wise to develop something that can cause that much destruction environmentally, produce waste products that dangerous, and cause horrible destruction that cannot be mediated for many generations. If ever.
Personally, I think the possibility of incinerating refuse to create steam to drive the turbines is a far less destructive and far less dangerous alternative. Probably even far less costly. And the fuel is free, and it solves another environmental problem at the same time. And perhaps it’s time to revisit hydroelectric technology.
Personally, I think the possibility of incinerating refuse to create steam to drive the turbines is a far less destructive and far less dangerous alternative.
Waste to energy burners are still very environmentally destructive. There’s a reason you can’t put them near retirement homes or schools.
I don’t like either…but I keep my options open.
I personally think there’s viable green solutions. Wind/Solar/wave…and undiscovered technology. Solar panels have improved drastically…Wind turbines have improved drastically.
But are they as environmentally destructive as nuclear power…incuding the waste storage problems? I haven’t done the research, but I seriously doubt if they are.
Oh…I’m sure Nuclear is more destructive…But I don’t like either…
But more people die from Coal Plants (i.e. The burning and the mining) each year. I think Coal is the worse.
I dunno, mike. Tally the number of people that died between chernoble and fukushima as well as the earth’s area that has been destroyed for countless generations, and the permanently unusable areas that are/will be used to secure the radioactive waste, and I’m not so sure coal is more destructive or dangerous. And if one quake destroys one nuclear waste storage facility…we’ll have an unholy disaster.
But I’m also not saying that coal is the answer. Just that nuclear is the WORST answer.
SMB, the issue is that right now nuclear is the only viable solution to the bulk of our energy needs when the bio fuels run out. Consider that the wind farm i worked at had 100 turbines at 2.5MVA each for a total of 250 MVA. A single reactor at a nuclear power plant produces about 1100 MVA and most power plants have between 3 and 6 reactors.
I fully agree that nuclear fission plants are a very dangerous way to produce our needs, I wish there was a viable alternative, but right now there doesn’t seem to be one. I do hope that fusion becomes practical someday but I don’t know if we can count on it.
As for comparing coal to nuclear, one thing that is counted against coal is the high mortality rate of coal miners, what is not known is that uranium miners also have a high mortality rate, possibly higher than coal miners.
No doubt that nuclear is the worse possible option, but right now, it is the only viable option for the bulk of our future energy needs.
I spent a few weeks on Okinawa and visited the cliff where hundreds of Japanese women threw their children off to their deaths in the rocks below and them jumped after them. They did so because they had been convinced that the Americans were evil and would eat them. There are several news reals of the situation that were shown to us. I mention that because there is so much outrageous, emotional dogma being fed to US and a great many people fall for one bogus piece of dogma or another. And the political leaders have no concern for what motivates their constituents to jump on board to support them. In fact, the more dogmatic and ridiculous causes seem to make for more adamant supporters. Politicians want the cliff jumpers not the logical, stoic, thinking supporters. And today the cliff jumpers are steering both parties.
Being a bicycle rider who never supported nuclear energy because of the problems of dealing with the hazardous waste produced think there are solar, tidal, hydroelectric, wind sources of energy without a 100k year decay necessary until safe. I support coal also.
Existingoperating Nuclear Plants. http://crasstalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/us_nuclear_map.jpg
Rod, to answer your question, a wind turbine costs between 1 and 2 mil per MVA, the 2.5MVA’s I worked on were about $4mil each. They generate on average about 17500 MWH per year. Consider that right now, most utilities pay between $4 and 10 per MWH, the payback on one of these runs somewhere between 22 and 60 years. But there are utilities that pay up to $40 per MWH. Energy costs are going up.
Keith since you seem knowledgeable do you have any info on the energy production after consumption for the turbines? Heating etc.
MB…A lot of what your talking about is potential destruction…Yes I agree…nuclear has the potential of killing many more people…But as of right NOW…
And you have to consider the problems with Coal burning has caused here in the North East. Acid rain is real…and it’s DESTROYED many lakes in the north east. Some are completely dead.
I don’t want either.
SMB, the issue is that right now nuclear is the only viable solution to the bulk of our energy needs when the bio fuels run out. Consider that the wind farm i worked at had 100 turbines at 2.5MVA each for a total of 250 MVA. A single reactor at a nuclear power plant produces about 1100 MVA and most power plants have between 3 and 6 reactors.
Maybe…maybe not.
The solutions that are being looked at by corporations are huge farm solutions. Wind Farms…Solar Farms…
I don’t see this as a farm solution…but an individual solution. Solar panels for individual homes is a far better solution then having huge solar farms and then selling the power to everyone. But many companies don’t even want to consider that solution because it’s far far far more profitable to sell the service then to sell the product.
I am currently paying $0.062/KWh. Does that equal $61/MWH?
And while I am chasing these utilities maybe some who pay attention to their bills will post the price per ccf of natural gas. I am paying $92/ccw and my bill seems to be exponentially higher than just a few years ago. while my electric has only increased slightly.
Nuclear Emergy is expensive on the back end. The fuel can be continually reprocessed and used again. That was the original plan to make the plants both inexpensive fuel wise and to minimize the waste. The problem; with each reprocessing, the fuel gets closer to weapons grade. For that reason, the Carter Administration passed a rule limiting the reprocessing program which results in more waste which we must deal with for thousands of years, but keeps less weapons grade material available to whom ever would devote time and money to secure some. So, nuclear power is no panacea. The waste is VERY expensive to deal with and gets more expensive each year.
That has been a major stumbling block to licensing new plants for construction.