T Boone Pickens

[Gunslinger]

Let's put some additional reasoning to this. If wind was such a great resource then why isn't being used predominantly now?! Or why isn't solar power being used more often. The answer is because it is not economical. Every one is for reusable power that doesn't pollute. No one is for paying higher utilities. Well except T. Boone Pickens and it seems the Democrats are. These are not brand new ideas folks. I've read and heard about wind and solar power for almost my whole life. Nothing new is being invented or just now coming to the front. Don't you think that if some one could make millions off of these technologies they would have already. Currently the only way that can be done is to force you to buy the technology through government mandate. That will be expensive!

When the technology is there and when the market is ready we will use Wind and Solar energy.

What Pickens is trying to do is stall any oil development and that is what the democrats are trying to do as well. Pickens wants to make more money and the Democrats want power over every aspect of your life.

As answered earlier.....This hasn't been done because with low cost oil it wasn't economic to do so.  Now with high cost oil it makes more sense. 

[Gunslinger]

wait wait wait

WhyTF would you have to store wind power??????

It's a grid that is all connected and dependent on the load placed on it.  for the most part it will allways be "on" even if the output varies.

There's no reason to store the electricity created by wind power as it is a SUPPLIMENT to our energy grid.  There's no reason to store it at all.  IT IS the back up.  During peak times coal and other plants can run at one capacity and during lower peak times they can scale back.

Either way you are still ADDING a much needed source of CLEAN energy to the grid.

Back that  up with a couple of solar farms like they are building in austrailia while you add a couple of nuke plants in the long term and viola.  Problem not solved but at least much better.

[gunnss]

Something else to be considered is that the power grid is not capable of distributing the total power produced. Every power transmission method uses some power for ever inch of distance the power travels.

I run a 4 megawatt back up facility that has the sole purpose of providing power to a 40 acre compound. I have significant losses getting the power across a street, let alone distributing it nationally. Not to mention that my main battery bank is a thousand batteries that cost three thousand each, that three million dollars for a bank that can produce 2.5 million Watts for "8 Minutes".

Futher power isn't like water, you cant just dump it on the grid, if the source is out of phase, under or over voltage, or insufficiently coupled (badly connected) your power source can dump the grid, and cause the safety trips to open blacking out all your users. In Texas the grid has been dumped at least once because a wind farm "ran a way" and dumped an enormous surge to the grid, all of Europe was blacked out at least once for the same reason.

So the question is where does the money come from to rebuild our grid? And who is going to force the thousands of individual owners to do it?


Regards,
Kevin

[Mustaine]

Ok someone is going to have to teach me why you can't store electricity from windmills? That just doesn't even see to come close to making sense.

Just to beat this dead horse I thought over time you'd be smarter than making a flippant comment like this. you've been around a while and still make these types of comments... I guess it is just your way of trolling through here.

[Gunslinger]

yes there's gonna be loss through transmission but again there's loss through ALL power transmission. 

Again if this is a SUPPLIMENT to our current system it could work. 

[Hangtime]

Yup, Guns... mention solar and wind on the grid and folks jump up and down and holler about how it can't work....

... meanwhile; it is working.

Is it expected to supply ALL the energy on the grid? Nope. Is it expected to replace outright or in the immediate future the need for the LNG/Oil/Coal plants we currently have? Nope. Will it reduce the amount of LNG/Oil/Coal used? Nope... BUT WITH SOLAR AND WIND ON THE GRID the amount of LNG/OIL/Coal needed in the future (for the grid) will likely rise at a lower rate than the rise in demand for power.

Just a sure as there's christmas, we're gonna need more power tomorrow for the grid than we needed yesterday. Instead of building more coal/LNG/Oil plants to meet the increasing demands, add solar and wind and Nuclear.

"FU@&^%ing NOW, gentlemen!"

Hang

 

[bj229r]

windmills kill condors, so you can't put them in Cal. they will have to put them in your back yard.

Lol John, that WAS a problem at first, so they made ALL the windmills in CA (there are a LOT of them, esp in the Mojave>>Bakersfield corridor) have transmissions, which make the blades spin painfully slow, making them less efficient, and greatly increasing the 1 million dollar cost of EACH windmill

[Gunslinger]

Lol John, that WAS a problem at first, so they made ALL the windmills in CA (there are a LOT of them, esp in the Mojave>>Bakersfield corridor) have transmissions, which make the blades spin painfully slow, making them less efficient, and greatly increasing the 1 million dollar cost of EACH windmill

I don't know why they don't look into that helix spiral thing that one guy invented....let me find the link.

[BlkKnit]

wait wait wait

WhyTF would you have to store wind power??????

It's a grid that is all connected and dependent on the load placed on it.  for the most part it will allways be "on" even if the output varies.

There's no reason to store the electricity created by wind power as it is a SUPPLIMENT to our energy grid.  There's no reason to store it at all.  IT IS the back up.  During peak times coal and other plants can run at one capacity and during lower peak times they can scale back.

Either way you are still ADDING a much needed source of CLEAN energy to the grid.

Back that  up with a couple of solar farms like they are building in austrailia while you add a couple of nuke plants in the long term and viola.  Problem not solved but at least much better.

Now theres the answer I have been searching for while reading this thread.

Also, the argument made by someone that you would need to build a new plant to serve as the back up to the windmills.......umm, dont we already have plants?

anyway, interesting thread 

[BTW]

Do you get Pickens is farming subsidies and not wind power? Does he tell you the carbon footprint of manufacturing and maintaining these colossals? What powers the plants that creates these windmills? Do you have any idea of how many will have to be built and maintained to produce only 20% of the United States electrical needs? Where the hell is that in Picken's "plan."

There is a reason the world depends on diesel powered watercraft and not sail boats.  Just think, we've been perfecting wind powered boats for thousands of years and diesel still beats it. You seriously believe we're on the cusp of some wind breakthrough?

Only in America could they market the wind.

[Hangtime]

Do you get Pickens is farming subsidies and not wind power? Does he tell you the carbon footprint of manufacturing and maintaining these colossals? What powers the plants that creates these windmills? Do you have any idea of how many will have to be built and maintained to produce only 20% of the United States electrical needs? Where the hell is that in Picken's "plan."

There is a reason the world depends on diesel powered watercraft and not sail boats.  Just think, we've been perfecting wind powered boats for thousands of years and diesel still beats it. You seriously believe we're on the cusp of some wind breakthrough?

Ahhh... right. Lets start pulling down the @ 75,000 turbines that are up.. cancel all orders for the ones in production, halt solar development and order a few thousand more tanker loads of light sweet saudi crude.

edit: I wonder what the 'carbon footprint' is for more of these:



You got oil stock?

[JoeA]

Only in America could they market the wind.

Denmark gets 20% of its electric power from wind.   Spain, Portugal, Germany and Ireland are also big players.  The US is just starting and has 1% or less.  Wind is useful power source as *part* of an overall power system, not as the only power source.

[BTW]

Ahhh... right. Lets start pulling down the @ 75,000 turbines that are up.. cancel all orders for the ones in production, halt solar development and order a few thousand more tanker loads of light sweet saudi crude.

You got oil stock?

Let me splain something. You have many people in Texas worried about who is going to remove those eyesores after the subsidies run out and they are no longer federal money siphons. They wont be used for energy, they'll simply rot on the horizon. 

We need to develop alternate energy sources, but we need a little more expertise than someone who has ridden on Disney's Carousel of Progress ride. They're reselling the WINDMILL. Does that strike you as odd? We have nuclear technology and they are deferring to centuries old technology - the windmill. Its a ruse of obstructionists, plain and simple.

What in the world is a more efficient use of wind energy than a sail boat? Is there anyway a sail boat could out perform a diesel powered boat? Could a sail boat match the performance of a diesel powered boat? Why do you think a windmill could match the performance of petroleum generated power?

You want something clean? WE HAVE IT! Nuclear. But Dimocrats aren't about solving, they are about obstructing.

[storch]

herzogin cecile

[BTW]

edit: I wonder what the 'carbon footprint' is for more of these:

(Image removed from quote.)

You got oil stock?

Compared to what its traversing, next to nothing.

If you could eliminate the biggest CO2 producer in the world, would you?

The fact that you see the freighter and are oblivious to the ocean shows the power of propaganda.

Here's another point  of view...
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5656