 
Mind_field
Member
Username: Mind_field
Post Number: 863
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 - 5:07 pm: |    |
Great link D_mcc, thanks for sharing. |
D_mcc
Member
Username: D_mcc
Post Number: 275
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 - 5:11 pm: | |
I think everyone around the world can look at Richard Branson as a role model. The man risks his own capitol, and bankroll, to make things better for the future. He uses his fortune for some really great things, and trying to make his airline switch to a fuel that would cost more, but do a lot to help the environment is really inspiring.
Its like those people who attack Al Gore for having such a high energy bill, without researching the fact he pays 2-3x more per KwH to pay for renewable and green energy.
IF we all sacrificed a little bit initially, the prices would come down. |
Nainrouge
Member
Username: Nainrouge
Post Number: 826
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 - 5:23 pm: | |
Branson is an example of "you are the change that you want to see" whilst 3rdworldcity can only see the dollar signs. |
D_mcc
Member
Username: D_mcc
Post Number: 276
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 - 5:25 pm: | |
^^^I couldn't have said it better myself.
People also overlook Bill Gates...who donates quite a bit of money each year to charities for 3rd world development and alternative energy research. |
Peachlaser
Member
Username: Peachlaser
Post Number: 158
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 - 5:35 pm: | |
I really think wind has a great place in generating electricity economically and basically cleanly.
2008 marks the 30th anniversary of when I nearly lost my life installing a prototype windmill so I have followed wind development over the years with great interest. We were somewhat wind pioneers back in 1978 and our prototype had blades on it made by a little known (back then) guy named Burt Rutan. Click on the Windmill icon here... http://www.lasersol.com/art/tu rrell/RodenMenu.html |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 5267
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 - 8:51 pm: | |
Peachlaser, I went through your windmill story. That was a great story, though the part about you hanging onto the tower holding up wildly spinning blades sounds pretty terrifying. |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 5294
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 - 8:54 pm: | |
Did Al Gore invent wind too, in addition to all his other inventions? Or just good at passing it. |
Qweek
Member
Username: Qweek
Post Number: 501
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 - 9:32 pm: | |
To any of you interested in green tech here is a great web site,
http://www.metaefficient.com/r enewable-power |
Birdwoman
Member
Username: Birdwoman
Post Number: 22
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 - 10:04 pm: | |
As far as birds go (and, since I'm an ornithologist I know a little about this), wind turbines can be put in places where there will be minimal impact (no pun intended). I'm not sure that the Detroit River is one of them, as it is a MAJOR migration corridor, in particular for raptors which tend to fly pretty low once they cross water. The hawk watch at Southeastern Michigan Raptor Research (www.smrr.net) counts hundreds of thousands of hawks each fall. The river is also a major wintering area for many species of waterfowl, which also are apt to be within the range of the rotor swept area. Further, studies of some off-shore wind farms have found certain waterfowl will not feed within quite a distance of a turbine (disturbance issues are particularly poorly studied).
Now, I don't know what type of turbine they are going to use, the height of the tower, or the diameter of the rotor swept area. I see that they did some sort of avian study with radar, but I can't evaluate whether this type of study is adequate or not since I haven't read the methods or results. However, we actually have very little extensive, long-term data on the effects of wind farms on birds and other wildlife. If anybody is interested in delving into some peer-reviewed bird research, there was a special issue of the journal of the British Ornithologists' Union that is open-access: http://tinyurl.com/35cld5
I'm absolutely not against wind power or other renewable sources of energy. And certainly cats and windows do cause more deaths than wind farms (so far, as best we know). But just because heart disease causes more deaths than diabetes does not mean we disregard the latter. Our actions have cumulative effects, and we should always be prudent in our choices. |
Vantanna
Member
Username: Vantanna
Post Number: 1
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 - 10:07 pm: | |
Absolutely |
Ray
Member
Username: Ray
Post Number: 1078
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 22, 2008 - 12:10 am: | |
I think wind is great, but I am against despoiling scenic areas like lakeshores. Michigan is already so godoforsaken ugly, why ruin the last few remaining scenic areas.
We should try conseravation first. We WASTE far more than we could generate by wind power. Let's consume less instead continuing on the path of destruction. |
Peachlaser
Member
Username: Peachlaser
Post Number: 159
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Friday, February 22, 2008 - 7:52 am: | |
JohnLodge, yes it was a terrifying experience once the blades started popping and were out of control. There was no generator inside, so the blades were free-wheeling. We hung onto the tower with one hand while we held the out-of-control windmill away from our bodies with our other hand. This went on for almost an hour before we could lasso a blade and tie it down. Then about a week later, we tried it again and got the windmill to the top and mounted. Then a few weeks later, a co-worker, my wife and myself rolled off the side of a canyon in the middle of winter and rolled 15 times down the side of the canyon before sliding another 50 yards upside down. We were in the Ford pickup that is shown in the windmill photos. That's when we decided to move to California!
Personally, I like the look of windmills on the landscape in most places. They look much better than smokestacks from power plants, that's for sure, and look better than radio and cell towers. To me, there is a gracefulness in their look and operation. I've always liked the old windmills that pumped water on farms and have missed seeing them as they were replaced by electricity. I love the windmills of Holland and Greece and I think they add character to the landscape.
I also love birds and have feeders just outside my office window. So, I am in favor of locating them in non-migratory routes. I wish there was an inaudible (to humans) sound that windmills could make to warn birds (like a deer whistle). |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 5272
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 22, 2008 - 9:05 am: | |
quote:I think wind is great, but I am against despoiling scenic areas like lakeshores. Michigan is already so godoforsaken ugly, why ruin the last few remaining scenic areas.
Say what now? For all of Michigan's problems, being ugly is definitely not one of them! It's probably one of the more beautiful states in the union.
Peachlaser, I agree with your take on the aesthetic of windmills. They are much nicer on the eyes than cell towers. And what they symbolize ads to the attraction. |
Gravitymachine
Member
Username: Gravitymachine
Post Number: 1968
Registered: 05-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 22, 2008 - 9:18 am: | |
quote:Say what now? For all of Michigan's problems, being ugly is definitely not one of them! It's probably one of the more beautiful states in the union.
new york is prettier |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 5275
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 22, 2008 - 9:21 am: | |
So are Tennessee and Wyoming. But that wasn't my point.  |
Detroitpetanque
Member
Username: Detroitpetanque
Post Number: 56
Registered: 09-2006
| | Posted on Friday, February 22, 2008 - 10:22 am: | |
|
Single_malt
Member
Username: Single_malt
Post Number: 8
Registered: 02-2008
| | Posted on Friday, February 22, 2008 - 10:34 am: | |
DP...that is some funny stuff. Made me laugh out loud.... |
Detroitpetanque
Member
Username: Detroitpetanque
Post Number: 57
Registered: 09-2006
| | Posted on Friday, February 22, 2008 - 10:43 am: | |
There is a design question though... I'm not quite sure if the scarecrow should rotate with the turbine blades, or just remain fixed. |
Nainrouge
Member
Username: Nainrouge
Post Number: 828
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Friday, February 22, 2008 - 11:09 am: | |
quote:I think wind is great, but I am against despoiling scenic areas like lakeshores. Michigan is already so godoforsaken ugly, why ruin the last few remaining scenic areas.
Yeah, we are much better off with our scenic Zug Island. Or how about the hulk of the McClouth Steel plant in Trenton? We don't exactly have the prettiest riverfront in the world and many areas, especially downriver, would be vastly improved by building a windfarm on them. |
Peachlaser
Member
Username: Peachlaser
Post Number: 160
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Friday, February 22, 2008 - 1:38 pm: | |
Check out this organic design...
http://www.37signals.com/svn/i mages/dutch_windmill.jpg |
Birwoodsis
Member
Username: Birwoodsis
Post Number: 2
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - 12:38 pm: | |
I grew up in the D but moved to Wyandotte in '65.
I love this town & am excited about the windmills. They'll be on BASF property & in an industrial area. We have not only our own cable & electricity but our own water system as well. |
Fmstack
Member
Username: Fmstack
Post Number: 44
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 8:37 am: | |
I think wind is great, but I am against despoiling scenic areas like lakeshores. Michigan is already so godoforsaken ugly, why ruin the last few remaining scenic areas.
I understand that a lot of people have this point of view, and I certainly appreciate the value of untouched wilderness, but even so I can't be the only one who thinks that modern windmills, in areas that are already developed (be the development urban or rural) are gorgeous. At the very least, they're far and away the least ugly power generation systems we have, but, more than just being less-ugly, I think they're, well, pretty. |
Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 1469
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 10:57 am: | |
Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 5371
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 11:03 am: | |
A 90 minute power outage to "Interruptible" customers: mostly industrial customers who pay a lower electric rate with the knowledge their power will be interupted first in case of overdemand on the grid. Doesn't sound too bad to me. One good winter storm can leave Detroiters without power for days on end. |
D_mcc
Member
Username: D_mcc
Post Number: 288
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 11:17 am: | |
Uh...Mike...Funny you should post that...counterpoint:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02 /23/business/23wind.html |
Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 1471
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 11:39 am: | |
quote:Doesn't sound too bad to me.
So, as long as it is someone else that is carrying the risk, you are all for it.
Demand for electricity is quite predictable, while the output for wind farms is not. Just remember, the hottest days of summer often have little or no wind and as this example shows, it can happen in winter as well.
As we rely more on wind power and less on the more reliable types of power generation plants, the need to quickly shed large amounts of demand will only grow.
Will you still be so supportive when we all get put on an "interruptible" service and there is no longer any discount? |
Nainrouge
Member
Username: Nainrouge
Post Number: 894
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 11:51 am: | |
Yep, you are right. Those non-renewable power plants are just soooo reliable:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/ 26/florida.power/index.html?ir ef=hpmostpop |
Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 1472
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 12:03 pm: | |
Nainrouge, according to that article you linked, the failure was attributed to a failed switch and fire at an electrical substation. These are part of the electrical distribution grid and have absolutely nothing to do with the type of power generation source. |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 5374
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 12:25 pm: | |
Power generation should be a mix of sources. Wind is a part of the equation, but should not be depended on completely. This is not an all or nothing proposition. Obviously Texas is not managing their power properly, or is right at the edge of what the demand is, if the wind slowing down during peak demand causes outages.
quote:So, as long as it is someone else that is carrying the risk, you are all for it.
Hmm. I believe I pay the full rate for power, not a discounted rate under the understanding that I will be switched off first if needed. So this seems an irrelevant argument to me.
(Message edited by johnlodge on February 28, 2008) |
D_mcc
Member
Username: D_mcc
Post Number: 291
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 12:36 pm: | |
Mike...as a resident of florida at the moment, as well as someone who was effected by the outage. The power station and failed switch accounted for much less of the outage than the SHUTDOWN OF THE TURKEY CREEK NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION PLANT.
The shutdown of the plant accounted for far more people being without power than a fire at a substation. |
Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 1473
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 1:23 pm: | |
As a former interruptible power customer of DTE, I can attest that I was billed at a lower rate for all the electricity used by my air conditioning compressor, which had its own separate meter.
Regarding the shutdown of the Turkey Creek power plant, it was caused by the switch failure and equipment fire. It was compounded by the inability of the distribution grid operator to quickly isolate the affected area because of a yet undetermined failure in redundant equipment.
The power plant had to be taken down to protect its generators from permanent damage caused by the fluctuation in the power grid. Both the nuclear reactor and gas-fired generators had to be taken off-line. Any wind generators would have had to also been taken off-line to prevent damage to their equipment.
My point is that the Florida incident had absolutely NOTHING to do with the type of power generation sources being used. |
Nainrouge
Member
Username: Nainrouge
Post Number: 895
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 1:24 pm: | |
The point is that power can be cut for many reasons. Pointing the finger at wind because of one incident is stupid. Your article says that multiple things caused the power emergency, including cold weather which lead to a much higher demand and "multiple power suppliers fell below the amount of power they were scheduled to produce on Tuesday". You can as easily blame one of the other suppliers as you could blame wind. |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 5375
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 1:33 pm: | |
Exactly. My point was that losing power for an hour and a half on a rare occasion, when several factors come together to cause the incident, is well within our acceptable range in America. We expect to lose power once in awhile, possibly for a couple hours, for many possible reasons. My power went out yesterday for about an hour. Who knows why. We expected it even more often if we are on an interruptible power plan.
Considering only about 3% of Texas's power comes from wind, I highly suspect there is some serious finger pointing going on here. Demand goes up, NONE of the suppliers are creating enough electricity for various reasons, let's blame the wind farm? Demand was over 35,000 MW. The wind farms production was down 1,400 MW. ERCOT generally carries over 2,300 MW in their reserves, anything lower they consider emergency. Given these figures, does putting the bulk of the blame on wind really make sense? |
Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 1474
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 1:51 pm: | |
quote:does putting the bulk of the blame on wind really make sense?
Since ERCOT included the unpredictable wind generation capacity in their reserves, then yes, it does make sense. |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 5383
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 2:55 pm: | |
Except you can't factually make that assertion, since there were no figures given for how far below expected output all the "other sources" in the article were. But we can do some quick math based on what the article does tell us.
Demand increased from 31,200 MW to 35,612 MW.
Power produced from wind was down from 1,700 MW to 300 MW.
The change in demand was greater than the maximum capacity of all wind generation at peak performance. Even if they were buzzing along at full power, they couldn't make up even half of the difference in demand.
So I still have a hard time seeing how they can take a greater share of the blame than the other suppliers, who's output was also unexpectedly down. |
Mind_field
Member
Username: Mind_field
Post Number: 866
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 3:10 pm: | |
Wind power relies on an eratic and unpredictable source to generate electricity. It also might kill a few birds in the process. It's not a flawless technology, but is by far the cleanest most non-polluting way to generate electricity.
So what exactly is your agenda here Mikeg? |
Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 1475
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 4:01 pm: | |
I firmly believe that a dependable supply of electricity is fundamental to economic growth and to the health and well-being of our citizens. Third-world citizens have to live with unpredictable electrical supply and rolling blackouts as they claw their way up the economic ladder but I would hate to see a reliance on "cleaner" to the exclusion of "reliable" energy production drag a fully-developed nation like ours down to a third-world status.
I want to see more modern large-scale electrical power plants built in the future, with more nuclear and fewer natural gas powered generators. As an engineer - and having witnessed the numerous large scale cascading failures in our current electrical distribution grid - I fully believe that a distributed network that includes numerous small wind and solar power generators is inherently unreliable from a mean-time-between-failure system standpoint and it is only made worse by man's inability to match solar and wind output with demand. While wind and solar may be suitable for sparsely populated areas, they are not the answer for our region.
What's your agenda? |
Nainrouge
Member
Username: Nainrouge
Post Number: 896
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 5:00 pm: | |
I like to breathe fresh air. |
Mind_field
Member
Username: Mind_field
Post Number: 867
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 5:56 pm: | |
hmmmm European nations like Denmark haven't been dragged down to third world status because of their significant investment in renewables. I think you are being a little overly dramatic Mikeg. My agenda is that I want to leave the Earth in better shape after I've used it, for the benefit of future generations (I know, what an elitist, horrible agenda!). Just ask citizens of Shanghai and particularly Beijing, China what good an economy first/environment last policy has done for them. They might have more disposable income like the middle class of the United States, but their life spans are being shortened by the hellish pollution.
I don't think there has to be economic sacrifice with the continued proliferation of renewables. We can have both. We can have economic prosperity and renewable energy. Just might require some effort and innovation. |
Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 1476
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 7:06 pm: | |
Yep, Denmark is the economic powerhouse of the EU - not!
Maybe France - with their sensible energy policy - would be a better example, don't you think?
BTW, I think Nainrouge, with his "I like to breathe fresh air" comment is the one who is being "a little overly dramatic". |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 457
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 10:34 pm: | |
"BTW, I think Nainrouge, with his "I like to breathe fresh air" comment is the one who is being "a little overly dramatic"."
Why? Does anyone question to links between air pollution and the very negative impact on public health especially for those with asthma and other conditions that make them susceptible to the ill-effects of airborne pollutants? I'm betting that you don't have a family member whose health is compromised every time we have an ozone action day. Nuclear doesn't generate the airborne pollution that coal does but if you focused as much on conservation and energy efficiency, there might not be the need for additional coal or nuclear plants. |
Nainrouge
Member
Username: Nainrouge
Post Number: 902
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 10:42 pm: | |
quote:Maybe France - with their sensible energy policy - would be a better example, don't you think?
Umm, no. Germany is the undisputed economic powerhouse of Europe.
http://www.german-renewable-en ergy.com/Renewables/Navigation /Englisch/wind-power.html
"With more than a third of the world's installed capacity, no other country has more wind turbines than Germany. According to figures from the German Wind Energy Association (BWE), 18,685 plants with a capacity of 20,622 megawatts were in operation at the end of 2006. They generated 30.5 billion kilowatt hours of electricity in 2006. This corresponds to a share of around five percent in Germany's total electricity consumption and provides the largest contribution to power generation from renewable energy sources (sources: AGEE-Stat, industry figures; as of April 2007)." |
Nainrouge
Member
Username: Nainrouge
Post Number: 903
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 10:44 pm: | |
quote:BTW, I think Nainrouge, with his "I like to breathe fresh air" comment is the one who is being "a little overly dramatic".
So you'll be moving to Delray soon then, will ya Mike? |
Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 1477
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 11:13 pm: | |
You insist on making this personal, so I will respond in kind.
What a bunch of overly dramatic drama-queens!
Just because someone doesn't share the same priorities that you do, you make the bogus accusation that they don't give a shit about the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink. You seem oblivious to the tremendous strides in air and water quality improvement we have made over the last 40 years (and continue to make). You guys can't even make the distinction between electrical generation and its transmission, so why should anyone take what you have to say seriously? |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 458
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 12:38 am: | |
"You seem oblivious to the tremendous strides in air and water quality improvement we have made over the last 40 years (and continue to make)."
That's great, we've gone from burning rivers to ones that are merely unsafe to swim in. The progress we've made is because of legislation like the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, not because the industries that poison the air and water did it out of the goodness of their hearts. But that still doesn't change the fact that many places in Michigan that are nowhere near these power plants still suffer the ill effects of them. |
Mind_field
Member
Username: Mind_field
Post Number: 869
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 3:57 am: | |
Yeah. While we are on the topic of improvements to the air and water quality, let us not forget about that evil and decietful corporation, BP, and their whore, the state of Indiana.
BP was allowed to dump significantly more pollution into Lake Michigan from their Whiting, Indiana oil refinery.
But we should just look the other way because it MIGHT make our gas 20 cents cheaper right?
OUTRAGEOUS! Who cares if southern Lake Michigan turns into a toxic cesspool as long as my gas is cheap! ME! ME! ME!•••••• It's all about MEEEEE. |
Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 1478
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 6:54 am: | |
quote:The progress we've made is because of legislation like the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, not because the industries that poison the air and water did it out of the goodness of their hearts.
You are sadly mistaken if you think all it took to make that happen was the stroke of a pen in Washington D.C. You also have to give credit to the economic and political freedoms in this country that enabled such a success story as well as the corporate profits that funded it! Despite what statists like Novine would have you believe, massive improvements in urban air quality took place in the 1950s and 60s prior to the Clean Air Act of 1970. Federal regulations have played a role in the continuing improvements since 1970, but with higher costs and diminishing returns.
For those who think that government has the only solution to mankind's environmental problems, just remember that when the folks in Beijing complained about their air pollution, their government's enlightened response was to relocate the major industries to less polluted areas away from the city and to shut the remaining ones down for weeks at a time when international visitors come calling.
BTW, stop beating that BP "dead horse". More pollution in Lake Michigan isn't going to happen. |
3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 1039
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 3:59 pm: | |
Mikeg: Don't pay any attention to people like Nain who really don't see the big picture.
For example, Nain lauds Germany, which apparently generates 5% of its electricity from wind power, the leading nation in the wind power race. Good for Germany. In order to generate 5% of the U.S.'s electricity from wind power, we would have to spend countless billions for wind power infrastructure, assuming we could find enough places where the technology works.
My electricity bill in TX is about $90,000/month. I have spent many hours over the past 4 years attempting to find a way to build a wind power generator or two (or however many) to serve our requirements, or reduce our dependence on TXU. There was no way to do it economically, for many reasons. (We just spent $120,000 for a nat gas powered diesel generator set using waste dry gas we produce and that should save from $5000 to $8000 per month.)
Let's say the U.S. could generate 5% of its electricity from wind generators. That's a drop in the bucket and will do very, very little to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels.
I have a friend that constructed 16 turbines about 15 miles from us, in N. TX. They've been operating for 2 1/2 years now and he's given up all hope of ever breaking even, much less making any money. He claims the hassles in dealing with the electric utilities is unbelievable and that the price they pay him is unprofitable. He's tried selling directly to small factories in the area but that's not worked out either despite initial commitments from several of them.
However, I think that form of alternative energy, as I've stated before, should definitly be pursued.
By the way, electricity deregulation in TX has been a tremendous boondoggle and more and more people and industries are lobbying to go back to a State regulated environment. The last I heard, TX and Hawaii (for good reasons, as to the latter) are the only states not hooked up to a regional power grid. No out-of-state power company may export power into TX. |
D_mcc
Member
Username: D_mcc
Post Number: 303
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 4:21 pm: | |
Why is it always about profit? As stated time and time again...its not solar....or wind...or hydro...or nuclear that should be stand alone systems, but rather, integral parts of the whole to eliminate the need for a carbon based economy. |
3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 1040
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 4:43 pm: | |
Why is it always about profit? Because we live in a capitalistic society and without profits, and lots of them, the country will grind to an economic halt. The rich subsidize the poor (no problem with that philosophy) and they can't do it without profits. None of these alternative fuel deals would ever get off the ground unless people who invest in them have made profits somewhere, to invest.
Eliminate the need for a carbon based economy? Get serious. Tilting at windmills. Try taking a practical approach to things. Try to accomplish the possible. Fight for nuclear, wind/ocean power, other alternative fuels that may work, but recognize that on a best case basis, they'll merely lessen slightly our dependance on foreign energy and be a minor band aid to the environment. |
D_mcc
Member
Username: D_mcc
Post Number: 304
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 5:16 pm: | |
I said a multi-pronged approach. I am pro-nuclear as I have argued before. There is nothing wrong with a combination of Wind, Solar, Hydro, Wave, Nuclear...there are tons of possibilities that our government won't explore because we keep fighting wars for oil.
What happens when we run out??? |
Mind_field
Member
Username: Mind_field
Post Number: 870
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 5:50 pm: | |
quote:BTW, stop beating that BP "dead horse". More pollution in Lake Michigan isn't going to happen.
source?
http://www.iht.com/articles/20 07/11/27/business/bp.php
According to this article:
Three months ago, the London-based oil company said it would scrap the Whiting refinery's planned $3.8 billion expansion if it could not find ways to cut the amount of additional waste that project would send into the lake.
Now, as the clock ticks toward a decision on whether the project can proceed, BP says it has not yet figured out how to cut its expected higher discharges. Executives say they have scoured more than a dozen BP refineries and come up empty-handed.
The Indiana Department of Environmental Management, despite BP's pledge, will hold the refinery to the new permit's higher limits, Amy Hartsock, an agency spokeswoman, said.
The company has hired environmental and engineering consulting firms to find new technologies that could cut the expanded plant's discharges. And it has funded a $5 million project involving Argonne National Laboratory to assess emerging technologies.
One such analysis was done by Tetra Tech, an engineering firm hired by the city of Chicago. Its report concluded that BP could upgrade the treatment plant for $40 million or less to make the necessary pollution cuts with technology now used in other refineries. Those include advanced filtration systems and special towers to remove ammonia.
BP officials have been dismissive of the Tetra Tech report, saying it was based on limited information about the refinery and what technologies it already had in place or planned.
Well the final outcome of this remains to be seen. According to their own website, BP is working to limit the increased pollution levels that will occur with the expansion. Hopefully they do the right thing. I think they responded to the outrage from Chicagoans particularly and this is just what they should have done in the first place, it should have never been an issue.
(Message edited by Mind field on February 29, 2008) |
Nainrouge
Member
Username: Nainrouge
Post Number: 917
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 7:17 pm: | |
Hmmm, the DOE seems to disagree with you, 3rdworldthinker:
"Wind also holds many promises for the future. Studies commissioned by DOE in
response to the Government Performance and Results Act show that with the successful
implementation of the Wind Energy Program, this clean, renewable resource could
produce almost 1,000 billion kWh per year by 2050, representing approximately 50% of
all new electric generation resulting from the different generation technologies in the
EERE portfolio. This would result in 75 million metric tons carbon equivalent savings
annually, or 15% of the expected carbon reductions for all EERE programs."
“Areas with good wind resources have the potential to supply up
to 20% of the electricity consumption of the United States.”
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wi ndandhydro/pdfs/40593.pdf
One fifth of the power for the US is NOT insignificant. The same report addresses improvements in turbine technology and transmission issues that will further reduce the price of electricity produced by wind whereas the price of oil will continue to increase as supplies dwindle.
Why should Michigan care? First of all, we have very little domestically produced energy resources and we are importers of energy. Secondly let's take a look at a wind map of the US: http://www.eere.energy.gov/win dandhydro/windpoweringamerica/ wind_maps.asp See all the red around Michigan? Now let's see where current wind resources are: http://www.eere.energy.gov/win dandhydro/windpoweringamerica/ wind_installed_capacity.asp#hi story
Only three in Michigan. Michigan has great capacity to expand wind farms and create desperately needed jobs.
But maybe we should rather listen to a Texas oilman who thinks he knows everything? After all, what the hell does the Department of Energy know about electricity anyway? |
3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 1041
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 11:11 pm: | |
The Department of Energy doesn't know much more about electricity than anyone else. DOE is one of the least respected bureaucracies in Washington. It's great at compiling statistics on what's already happened in the energy world but an incompetent prognosticator. I subscribe to several DOE email reports weekly but have learned to pay little attention to any of their predictions, because when it comes to predicting oil prices, for example, based on historic trends, they're almost always wrong. I base my view not necessarily on my own relatively few first-hand experiences, but on the views of trade associations to which I belong, the O & G trade press and so forth.
A good example of why the DOE should not be taken too seriously is it's apparent belief it can predict possible wind generated electricity production over 40 years in the future. Only idiots would attempt that and only idiots would put any stock in their conclusions. Like you.
You seem to think MI is a good candidate for wind energy. Well, so does the DOE. And then again, it doesn't. Take a look at Figure 8 in the first DOE link, which shows MI to have very little potential, and the various maps in the second DOE link, which show MI to have a lot of potential. Typical DOE. Two studies by bureaucrats in different cubicles a floor apart. Gives one an opportunity to choose whatever one wants to believe.
I may be a 3rd world thinker as you suggest, but at least I make an effort to think. You don't.
I know a lot more about oil and gas than I do about electricity. But, I've seen the same long range DOE projections about oil and gas resources, and have followed them for the last 18 years, and if they're any indication of the DOE's prognostication abilities with respect to wind generated electricity, there may be 5% in 43 years, not 50% as they claim and you seem to eat up. Don't hold your breath.
(Read the debate in today's Det News between Anthony Early of DTE and some woman that thinks as you do. Now, if wind energy has such great potential as you and some guy at DOE think, you'd think DTE would be jumping for joy to have the opportunity to get on the bandwagon. It's not. DTE's planning to build more conventional power plants, but then again, Early hasn't had the benefit of your insight and expertise.) |
Titancub
Member
Username: Titancub
Post Number: 110
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, March 01, 2008 - 10:25 am: | |
Reality is wind/solar/biomass/other are just not cost competitive with traditional sources (nuclear, coal, natural gas). Therefore, until a mass of the population demonstrates a willingness to pay extra to save the environment and these green technologies there will continue to be limited adoption of them. Alot of the population says they care about the environment but simply aren't willing to spend a buck to back it up. For those in the DTE Currents program, you are the exception to this and putting your money where your mouth is.
3rdworlds example of people he knows who can't sell their wind output to TXU is a perfect example of this. TXU doesn't want to buy the output at a high price because they know they can only charge so much to their customers. Therefore, they don't buy the wind output and the green power advancement slows.
3rdworld - Piling on the DOE for failing at predicting energy and commodity prices is tough. There isn't a single person who 10 years ago would've forecast where oil is at now, where natural gas has jumped to, where power prices are, etc. Just saying that these markets have fooled absolutely everyone along the way. |
Nainrouge
Member
Username: Nainrouge
Post Number: 926
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, March 01, 2008 - 11:59 am: | |
quote:I base my view not necessarily on my own relatively few first-hand experiences, but on the views of trade associations to which I belong, the O & G trade press and so forth.
The Oil and Gas trade press - now THAT is an unbiased source! They are the COMPETITION, 3rdworldmentality, and they are spoon-feeding you anti-alternative energy propaganda and like a good little sychophant puppy dog, you just lap it right up and then barf it all back up here. Fortunately the rest of us are not so indoctrinated that we are still able to think for ourselves.
quote:A lot of the population says they care about the environment but simply aren't willing to spend a buck to back it up.
Nope.
http://wwj.typepad.com/mer/200 8/02/um-study-michig.html |
3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 1042
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 01, 2008 - 4:53 pm: | |
Titancub: I wholeheartedly agree with the statements in your last paragraph. That's my point. However, I wasn't bashing the DOE for the inaccuracy of its predictions. I was pointing out that no one in his right mind would be so foolish as to try and predict energy usage 40+ years out, and worse yet, label it "scientific." Let's face it, the DOE's constituency are people in energy businesses. They give away tons of money to industry constituants, primarily the oil and gas developers, but also electricity generators, coal miners etc, for all sorts of technology developments. They have to justify giving away all the money they do by writing long, "detailed," studies and projections like Nainrouge posted in order to convince Congress and people like Nainrouge that their existence is justified.
I remember very well over 50 years ago when the predecessors of the guys sitting in the cubicles now were projecting that by the '80's cars would be able to fly; folks would drive them around in urban areas as they do now, but all intra-urban travel would be in the air. A lot of people, like Nainrouge, couldn't wait to put their orders in. I would have. But then again, I was quite young, inexperienced and naive, and believed anything some scientist predicted. |
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.