Japanese breakthrough in wind power

[The30YardSlant]

Can you elaborate on this.

There are many more minor issues but the root of the problem is that upkeep and operational costs are ENORMOUS. The average wind turbine has to be replaced every two years and they are very susceptible to weather damage as many of the heavily farmed areas are also located in prime thunderstorm/tornado country. The energy cost of producing, transporting and erecting a single wind turbine is well into six-figures. As you have no doubt seen a wind farm, you can imagine the costs of simply getting the thing up and runing let alone maintaining that for long periods of time.

There are many sites out there that will give you a full list of the problems with widespread wind power, especially since they are trying (and failing miserably) to utilize it on a large scale in Europe.

 

[DFWJC]

That's awesome!
Hopefully the progess continues.


At least wind power is showing promise, because solar power has been a nightmare. Sad how a lot of the highest end solar panels work in sunlight but see the science break down in high heat. lol Minor flaw....
Some of the largest Solar power companies (First Solar, for example) in the world are now halting construction on solar panel plants. Oh well, someone will figure it out.

 

[jnday]

If Florida and California would allow drilling off their coast like the other states , we would be in better shape . Opening up drilling in all Alaska would help as well . If this country would convert to natural gas , it would give us time to improve wind and solar power . Florida and California really tick me off due to the fact that they use alot of oil , but they don't want any drilling .

 

[Longboysfan]

Why not have a wind farm circling Washington DC. Maybe all around the beltway.

Problem solved.

 

[DFWJC]

There are many more minor issues but the root of the problem is that upkeep and operational costs are ENORMOUS. The average wind turbine has to be replaced every two years and they are very susceptible to weather damage as many of the heavily farmed areas are also located in prime thunderstorm/tornado country. The energy cost of producing, transporting and erecting a single wind turbine is well into six-figures. As you have no doubt seen a wind farm, you can imagine the costs of simply getting the thing up and runing let alone maintaining that for long periods of time.

There are many sites out there that will give you a full list of the problems with widespread wind power, especially since they are trying (and failing miserably) to utilize it on a large scale in Europe.

It's an uphill battle for sure.

Any progress is a good thing, but they have a long way to go.

The goverment has been throwing billions at wind and solar and making very little headway.
But at least some friends in higher places have their pockets lined

 

[Hoofbite]

Why not have a wind farm circling Washington DC. Maybe all around the beltway.

Problem solved.

True. The constant sucking from the Commanders would provide a very reliable source of wind.

 

[Tusan_Homichi]

If Florida and California would allow drilling off their coast like the other states , we would be in better shape . Opening up drilling in all Alaska would help as well . If this country would convert to natural gas , it would give us time to improve wind and solar power . Florida and California really tick me off due to the fact that they use alot of oil , but they don't want any drilling .

I would imagine it has to do with the fact that the natural beauty of their wildlife/coastline is what brings in a ton of money to their economies. Anything that could potentially compromise that, they'd probably be opposed to.

 

[joseephuss]

A large wind farm operating at 100% capacity twenty-four hours a day would never produce more energy than it used up in the process of utilizing the energy. In reality all operate at a net loss of power due to 100% capacity being impossible to attain.

In contrast, a large solar plant operating at 75% capacity for twelve hours everyday outputs 1.5x it's production and utilization energy costs.

A nuclear plant operating at 25% capacity for eight hours everyday produces 100x it's production and utilization energy costs.

Wind is not viable at all, solar is viable but not overly efficient AND it is lacking during peak energy hours as someone above me stated. Meanwhile, a nuclear power plant operating well below their normal operating capacity for only a third of the day produces exponential energy gains. In the real world, the average nuclear power plant is readily capable of producing 1000x times it's input in terms of power every single day.

You could cover every inch of the United States with wind plants, operate them constantly for 100 years and store enough electricity to last the entire country about twenty minutes...with a net loss in total energy due to the effort put into it.

Non of that answers the question about the amount lost during transmission.

 

[Doomsday101]

Land we have. And I thought many of the proposals were off-shore.

Anyhow, I agree with you about it being a supplemental resource right now.

Obviously it's not going to change things overnight but I think after time the ability to produce will grow. This guy put a ring around the blade and increased the capacity to produce.

Where they are located really depends on where your city is located.

In some instance yes you could use areas off shore to do it, inland areas different because again it is the large amount of land that would be required to put thousands of turbines in place.

I do agree that as time goes on many of these ideals and new ideals will take shape and provide us with much more energy. So I'm not opposed to wind, solar, nuclear, geo thermal, coal, oil and gas

 

[The30YardSlant]

Non of that answers the question about the amount lost during transmission.

The amount lost in transmission is relative and largely irrelevant.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Off shore wind farms would be the best. This new eyelet thing, seems to make a major difference. Double and sometimes tripling it's ability to generate electricity. Not only that, at times would it might not be running at all due to weak winds, it might be able to actually run now.

Not to mention, they are talking about making wave farms too. You could place this underneath the off-shore wind farms.

The biggest issue with wind power IMO is the inconsistent nature of it. If you built wind farms that could power the country when they are running, what happens when they aren't? You have to power up / power down coal and nat gas plants. That is expensive and the firing up and bringing down actually creates more pollution than staying actively running.

Now if it was possible to store large amounts of electricity, you theoretically could figure out a way to make it work. The problem is, you can't. So when the wind stops blowing, you either blackout or have to crank up the coal / nat gas plants.

 

[yimyammer]

Yep, the one thing everyone forgets, for every Megawatt of wind power on the grid a corresponding Megawatt is required to be on standby.

Not everyone, I never knew this in the first place so I could forget it

 

[jnday]

I would imagine it has to do with the fact that the natural beauty of their wildlife/coastline is what brings in a ton of money to their economies. Anything that could potentially compromise that, they'd probably be opposed to.

Texas , Al. , La. and Mississippi has drilling . We value our coast just as much as they do . Opening Ca and Fl could keep entergy prices down until some of these green sources are a realistic option. Wind and solar are a couple of options . The US has a great supply of natural gas that could last for hundreds of years if we would make the switch . With the money that oil brings in , I don't see our politicians doing much to change things .

 

[Doomsday101]

Texas , Al. , La. and Mississippi has drilling . We value our coast just as much as they do . Opening Ca and Fl could keep entergy prices down until some of these green sources are a realistic option. Wind and solar are a couple of options . The US has a great supply of natural gas that could last for hundreds of years if we would make the switch . With the money that oil brings in , I don't see our politicians doing much to change things .

Funny or sad thing depending on how you look at it. China is already drilling off the coast of Flordia since they were given permission to drill off the coast of Cuba.

 

[jnday]

Funny or sad thing depending on how you look at it. China is already drilling off the coast of Flordia since they were given permission to drill off the coast of Cuba.

Yeah , and China doesn't have the regulations that promotes safe drilling . It is a oil spill waiting to happen .

 

[Doomsday101]

Yeah , and China doesn't have the regulations that promotes safe drilling . It is a oil spill waiting to happen .

No doubt. China understands that to be an economic power they need energy and they will gladly go after the oil we seem to stupid not to go after. They are not concerned with regulation or safety.

That is not to say we shouldn't be but over the years the industry has been made out to be the bad guys. When you have an accident I expect these companies to pay for it but we can't stop producing and exploring for oil

 

[joseephuss]

No doubt. China understands that to be an economic power they need energy and they will gladly go after the oil we seem to stupid not to go after. They are not concerned with regulation or safety.

That is not to say we shouldn't be but over the years the industry has been made out to be the bad guys. When you have an accident I expect these companies to pay for it but we can't stop producing and exploring for oil

The solution is simple. Let's go drill off the coast of China and see how they like it.

 

[Doomsday101]

The solution is simple. Let's go drill off the coast of China and see how they like it.

Difference is they have the go ahead to drill off the coast of Cuba by the Cuban Government, we would not have the permission to drill off the coast of China.

We do have the ability to get permission to drill off the coast of Florida just not the will

 

[dreghorn2]

Slant pretty much has the situation summed up correctly, nuclear is the common sense option going forward.

As far as drilling is concerned we are already a nation running on natural gas, we have a surplus, prices have never been lower, and we are investigating export possibilities.

World wide coal usage is expected to continue to rise dramatically in the next decade or so, just not here, we export a huge amount to southeast Asia.

 

[DFWJC]

Slant pretty much has the situation summed up correctly, nuclear is the common sense option going forward.

As far as drilling is concerned we are already a nation running on natural gas, we have a surplus, prices have never been lower, and we are investigating export possibilities.

World wide coal usage is expected to continue to rise dramatically in the next decade or so, just not here, we export a huge amount to southeast Asia.

Yes, the US has an amazing amount of natural gas...which is a fairly clean fuel. Don't be surprised if more compressed natural gas service stations pop up and more new cars have that option for fuel.

The problem is, it seems (for several reasons) that the current administration does not want the US to have access to more fossil fuels--even if it helps our national secuity. That is one reason why the huge pipeline project from Canada was nixed. It's also partially why we are giving Russia 7-8 oil-rich islands off of Alaska by redrawing the international water line there. It's astounding.