May 9th, 2010
Categorized under: Renewable Energy
Renewable Energy Solution of the Month – Wind
This video series needs your vote! Go HERE brighterplanet.com register, vote 3 times, then come back. That there is power in the wind is not a new discovery, man has been using it for thousands of years. What most people don't realize is how much experimentation has been going on in this century. There is no shortage of energy... 20% wind by 2030 www1.eere.energy.gov Shifting to Renewable by 2030 news.stanford.edu www.scientificamerican.com China takes lead in Wind Development www.youtube.com Oil spill animation blog.al.com Wind History part1 www.youtube.com Wind History part 2 www.youtube.com National Academy — Bird and Environmental impacts books.nap.edu storage plants in the US www.industcards.com Wind lowers electricity prices in Europe www.bloomberg.com reuters _ "Loss of Wind" event www.reuters.com Why the Texas event raises no concern about wind www.energypulse.net ERCOT study of "loss of wind" event interchange.puc.state.tx.us Denmark: Best for Doing Business_2 years in a row www.forbes.com New York Times — a Sea of Untapped Energy www.nytimes.com Nordpool implements negative price www.nordpoolspot.com Denmark: Happiest people in the world www.visitdenmark.com
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Comments
@waltermh111 Studies show at least a minimum of 12 thousand miles of transmission lines for 20% production. This is a well known aspect of wind. If you think that all power sources require significant transmission lines you’d be wrong. Again, this is not bashing wind, catastrophic climate change will kill far more birds than a few thousand miles of transmission lines. As far as nuclear at coal locations? AP1000 uses 3.2 billion gallons of water a year. A typical coal plant? 4.4 billion.
joshcryer
May 9th, 2010
@ReduceGHGs
these kind of solutions will gradually be introduced.
the opportunities are immense.
greenman3610
May 9th, 2010
@joshcryer As far as just sticking one plant where another is, thats laughable.
If only it were so easy.
also by that regard you could say just put wind farms where coal plants are, or solar farms if they suit the area better. A concentrated farm shouldnt need too much more space if any more.
If a place your putting the wind farm is already making food, I am willing to bet transmission lines already go out to there, cutting some of the needs.
waltermh111
May 9th, 2010
Hellofa vid! Nice job.
A good used of the excess energy would be hydrogen production. Paying someone to leave the lights on is a waste.
ReduceGHGs
May 9th, 2010
@joshcryer I already explained to you the reason why you can leave it there, read again.
If the impacts of every path is the same in one regard, then its worthless to the discussion to point it out.
He was going after the most popular cons of wind power, where people believe it stands apart from the alternatives. The myth isnt surrounding transmission lines killing birds because those go up with any project. I dont get how you cant understand that.
waltermh111
May 9th, 2010
@RaySquirrel again, its not enough to matter to such discussions.
Its use across america is near unnoticable
en . wikipedia . org/ wiki / Energy _ in _ the _ United _ States
1%
I wasnt sure, which is the reason I added the end point. I knew that if it was a large enough amount to matter, I would know about them.
waltermh111
May 9th, 2010
@waltermh111 actually we do have oil powered plants, or at least diesel powered plants. Those are what powers the entire grid here on Long Island, where I live. Ever since the local government decided to shut down the Shoreham nuclear power plant that is all we have to go on. We can’t import coal and since the island is stationed on sand we can’t use geothermal.
RaySquirrel
May 9th, 2010
@waltermh111 If I wanted to defend nuclear I could say “well we just put a nuclear plant where each coal plant is and volia no need for tens of thousands of *new* miles of transmission lines. This is distinct from upgrades which do not add to the overall mileage by and large.” But I know that’s not economically nor politically feasible and it would take too long in any case. I don’t see why we can’t just admit that new transmission lines will kill birds. Still *nothing* like buildings and cats.
joshcryer
May 9th, 2010
@waltermh111 And just so we’re very clear here, I am not making a statement whatsoever about nuclear. None, nada. greenman may have mentioned nuclear to me because I talked about nuclear positively on DU, but I am not a “nuke nut” nor do I believe “nuclear is the solution.” I just have come to expect credible reporting from greenman. Indeed, his *own* citations mention high tension lines killing birds. How easily can that be used against him now? It can be used to diffuse his credibility.
joshcryer
May 9th, 2010
@waltermh111 The point is that if you refute wind causing bird deaths you cannot just leave it there, otherwise you are being disingenuous, not covering the full impacts directly related to wind. The reason wind needs transmission infrastructure is that wind is often built far from where it is used. The middle of the country is a veritable wind zone, it is also where we grow our food and where relatively few people live. If you’re going to put wind there, it will require transmission lines.
joshcryer
May 9th, 2010
@GreenGiantEly I assume you can imagien how much energy it takes to create a turbine.
But even if you cant, the lifetime of a turbine is in decades.
Few moving parts really and todays are extremely high tech.
Just like solar panels generally have a warranty for 20 years and are known to last at about 90% of rated efficiency for at least 30.
Now if your friend cant imagine recouping the costs by then, I dont know what to say.
But I am no expert, only amateur researcher.
waltermh111
May 9th, 2010
@2x6x250ml Definitely no one renewable will be the answer, which is why in his first vid on the subject he said he would be doing a video on each different answer.
The grid was the first answer (ours is in need of changing) and now its wind, then solar, geo, etc…
Of course for us, natural gas will become a backup source of energy to keep the grid stabalised no matter what, but as long as we get renewable to half our energy output i think thats a great and possible goal
waltermh111
May 9th, 2010
@saper321 Wind power is to power stationary things generally, oil is usually used to power mobile things usually.
Each has a different purpose, so the price of oil is irrelevent to the discussion.
We dont have oil power plants, or not enough to matter
waltermh111
May 9th, 2010
@joshcryer When your making benefit analysis, I would think thats the most important, otherwise all greenman would be saying is the something like “wind power has a con which is the extra transmission line needed for each farm, but thats a problem for all power generation facilities, so its moot.”
Would be a waste of video time.
waltermh111
May 9th, 2010
@joshcryer I dont get why your harping on that point when its worthless.
It doesnt matter whether you want to make a point about nuclear or not.
When your choosing whether to build a nuclear or coal plant or any other, you need more transmission line, so you have to compare impacts.
You cant just say transmission lines are an argument against wind but ignore that its an argument against everything.
So lets take the similar problems out and focus on the differences.
waltermh111
May 9th, 2010
@RandomConcepts I always think the sticking out like sore thumbs objection is silly and simple minded
I see coal plants just like I see wind farms and what do you think I find more attractive?
waltermh111
May 9th, 2010
@D34dFilms lol, Thats like asking what happens if a house in your neighborhood is struck by lightning.
Each windmill is grounded, and likely if hit, the engine may fry, but it would be one turbine down out of dozens in the farm.
waltermh111
May 9th, 2010
@Proletariat12 2) We got into the wind industry far before most of the world, but we quickly fell behind because we put the bottom dollar ahead of our future.
So we had a running head start and to dstill increase capacity yearly., but some other countries have just started focusing harder than us and continue to as time passes
waltermh111
May 9th, 2010
@Proletariat12 I will add my thoughts.
1) Why discharrge it into the ground if it can be used?
The company isnt exactly doing negative pricing to its loss.
Its doing so because it benefits both sides of the partnership between the company and the user.
They have to get rid of it somehow and its the same effort and cost whether it were into the ground or the home.
Not all companies in the world feel the need to make the mega bucks and gouge like we do here
waltermh111
May 9th, 2010
@vinak963 Was there a wind coalition speaking in favor of wind power?
How big is the wind org in Michigan?
Coal is what traditional companies know best, and what politicians, as with most citizens, know best.
it takes people educating them.
Sometimes you just cant educate somebody, or the money is too powerful on coal side, but how much has been tried so far?
waltermh111
May 9th, 2010
@greenman3610 What is MGMT?
Also why arent you a partner again?
I dont get how with all the work you have done for your channel.
Not enough views? Though just saying that makes me sad. Wish the public could see your videos on say, network news channels or PBS, Discovery channel, etc…
Was just thinking, you need more time. I dont know how much more time you have each week to make longer vids, but you get so much done already, you probably wouldnt need much more, but you do need more
waltermh111
May 9th, 2010
@LightninBoltz They dont want to stop the turbines completely because I assume its more efficient to keep them running steadily if possible, so they need to throw off the excess energy so it only helps them if people burn it off.
Maybe a mechanical efficiency issue also, I dont know.
but then most of the world isnt as obsessed about money as we are so maybe they dont need the mega profits our power companies feel they need so they are happy to encourage usage of the excess energy.
waltermh111
May 9th, 2010
@BaileysBeads That is already considered when building them, but sure, a 10min video (youtube limit) is not enough to cover every single pro and con of a technology.
Also, everything has a consequence, but what enviro issues will be solved by replacing them with this issue.
I think in general these green energy solutions are net positive for the environment and we are better at solving those problems with time.
waltermh111
May 9th, 2010
@TheCaptainLulz Ironically, some farmers are making money off the wind industry by leasing out space for wind farms on their land.
Its another bit of income to help.
waltermh111
May 9th, 2010
@DeviantincTV How old are the farms, because they have gotten quieter, and there are a few different wind techs depending on the company you buy from, and each will have their pros and cons, but in general wind can be made to be relatively quiet.
waltermh111
May 9th, 2010