With all the airports and military air fields up there near DC, isn't everybody on some kind of flight path?
Bill to protect Pax River could scuttle wind projects
- Thread starter David
- Start date
With all the airports and military air fields up there near DC, isn't everybody on some kind of flight path?
kom526
They call me ... Sarcasmo
OMGOMGOMGOMG!!!!
FACTSSSS!!!!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101021145001.htm
The price of electricity generated offshore is initially expected to be several times the cost of power from coal or natural gas.
A major problem at this point is the high cost of offshore wind. Because of the difficulty of building wind turbines offshore and connecting them to the power grid, the price of electricity generated offshore along the U.S. East Coast is expected to be more than 15 cents per kilowatt hour, or several times the cost of producing electricity with coal or natural gas, according to a 2012 report by the U.S. National Energy Technology Laboratory. Those costs are expected to fall as more offshore wind farms are built and connected by an offshore grid. Another U.S. report says that a reasonable goal for offshore wind prices would be 10 cents per kilowatt hour by 2020 and 7 cents per kilowatt hour by 2030.
FACTSSSS!!!!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101021145001.htm
The price of electricity generated offshore is initially expected to be several times the cost of power from coal or natural gas.
A major problem at this point is the high cost of offshore wind. Because of the difficulty of building wind turbines offshore and connecting them to the power grid, the price of electricity generated offshore along the U.S. East Coast is expected to be more than 15 cents per kilowatt hour, or several times the cost of producing electricity with coal or natural gas, according to a 2012 report by the U.S. National Energy Technology Laboratory. Those costs are expected to fall as more offshore wind farms are built and connected by an offshore grid. Another U.S. report says that a reasonable goal for offshore wind prices would be 10 cents per kilowatt hour by 2020 and 7 cents per kilowatt hour by 2030.
Last edited:
I've seen nothing that suggest the birds are being attracted to the turbines; it's probably just a matter of chance that they get hit by a blade.
That is not ever going to happen off MD's shores. The project is tiny...very tiny by comparison to the massive European projects that are expected to maybe reach a break-even operational status before 2020. However, that "break even" point is bolstered by the fact that Europeans pay more for their power now than we do..about 1.5 times more in many areas.
With all the airports and military air fields up there near DC, isn't everybody on some kind of flight path?
C
czygvtwkr
Guest
Don't be a dumbass
The ONLY reason solar and wind are being pushed are because the folks pushing it are in a position to make millions of $$
The technology is not mature enough to support itself.
Were there government subsidies to encourage the use of cars instead of horses or were cars a better more economical idea?
... and if you think man made CO2 is a problem check the actual numbers
It isn't that the technology isn't mature, there isn't much technology to it, it just doesn't have that far to go it's limits are in practical thermodynamics.
MMDad
Lem Putt
They've only been using windmills for thousands of years. If it isn't mature yet it will never be.
C
czygvtwkr
Guest
I think this fact may suprise some of the green energy proponents.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
On the very first Post in this thread I read this.
"But renewable-energy advocates are crying foul. They point out that the project's developer already has reached a deal with the Navy to curtail the turbines' operations so they wouldn't affect the air base. "
Now these turbines do not put out much energy running at the top of their performance level.
WTF kind of sense does it make to spend the millions it will cost to put these things in place and then curtail their operation?
"But renewable-energy advocates are crying foul. They point out that the project's developer already has reached a deal with the Navy to curtail the turbines' operations so they wouldn't affect the air base. "
Now these turbines do not put out much energy running at the top of their performance level.
WTF kind of sense does it make to spend the millions it will cost to put these things in place and then curtail their operation?
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Let's see. According to this paper, for the US to make it's own energy by 2030, it would take 590,000 5-megawatt wind turbines, 110,000 wave devices, 830 geothermal plants, 140 new hydroelectric dams, 7,600 tidal turbines, 265 million roof-top solar photovoltaic systems, 6,200 300-megawatt solar photovoltaic power plants, and 7,600 300-megawatt concentrated solar power plants.
http://catskillcitizens.org/learnmore/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf
Now, take into account the fact that the US uses 40% of primary energy to create electricity, and make the wild assumption that the US will not use any more power by 2030....what would it really take to re-power America's almost 1,000 Megawatt electrical grid with zero carbon sources?
Keep in mind, the asset value of our electrical grid (including generation, distribution, and transmission) is about $800 million.
http://www.ferc.gov/eventcalendar/files/20050608125055-grid-2030.pdf
Want wind power? In 2012, the U.S. wind industry installed a record 13 gigawatts of rated generating capacity; construction of 15,000 5-megawatt turbines annually for the next 16 years entails a five-fold jump in the installation rate. Building 13 gigawatts cost $25 billion, which implies an increase to $125 billion annually, reaching a total cost over the next 16 years of $2 trillion. And that’s just for wind power.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/2012_wind_technologies_market_report.pdf
Want solar? The world's largest PV plant in AZ produces 250 megwatts of generation capacity and cost $1.8 billion to build. http://www.pv-tech.org/news/worlds_largest_pv_project_comes_online_with_250mw_of_pv_capacity To reach zero-carbon repowering goals, we'd need to build 155 of these each year for the next 16 years. The costs would amount to roughly $280 billion annually, for a total of $4.5 trillion. The U.S. is also home to the world’s largest concentrated solar power plant at Ivanpah, California. That 372-megawatt plant cost $2.2 billion to build that implies spending of about $440 billion annually for 190 such plants, adding up over 16 years to roughly $7 trillion.
http://www.technologyreview.com/vie...ower-plant-delivers-power-for-the-first-time/
But wait.....that's all well and good at rated generation. As we all know, what they actually generate is highly variable. Plus, the sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow. Lets take that into account. This study shows that we'd have to oversize the generating capacity 2-3 times over to achieve reliable energy.
http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/windpower/resources/BudischakEtAl-AsPublished-Corrected.pdf
This means my earlier estimates of cost would jump to about $4 trillion for wind generation and more than $23 trillion the total solar portion. That is, of course, assuming installation costs do not fall over the next 16 years...which they probably will.
The ITIF analysis adds up all of the costs in the papaer mentioned first to estimate that weaning Americans off of fossil fuels entirely by 2030 would add up to a more modest total of $13 trillion, i.e., 5 percent of each year’s GDP over the next 16 years. The upshot is that this repowering would cost each American household an additional $5,664 per year until 2030.
You willing to shell out that much for "clean energy"? Because according to a 2011 poll, Americans would likely spend only $10 more per month for renewable energy.
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Voters-put-10-limit-on-green-energy-cost/804824
So, tell us all again how great it would be.....
Last edited:
C
czygvtwkr
Guest
Everyone is for it until they have to pay for it.