Half Moon Bay Review
TalkAbout Start a topic Login Create Login Forgot Password  
All Categories Around Town Elections Entertainment/Dining Schools
City Council Environment Sports Beyond the Coastside Catch All
Clay Lambert's Blog Mark Foyer's Blog Stacy Trevenon's blog Mark Noack's blog Bill Murray's Blog

A Mighty Wind

How difficult would this be in California? Generate power during wind, store in battery banks and eliminate the need for coal powered plants.

ImageDenmark Just Produced 140% of its Electricity Needs with Renewable Wind Power

Web Link

About a week ago, Denmark made the absolute most out of a particularly windy 24 hours by harnessing its power and producing not only all of its own electricity needs for the day, but enough extra to spread between three neighboring countries. To be exact, the sustainable wind-power technologies harnessed and collected 144% of one days electricity needs.

Denmark had previously developed its wind-power plants but on that particularly windy day, it reached 116% of its domestic electricity demands through wind farms and then exceeded even that impressive surplus, reaching 140%, causing Denmark to export excess power to Norway, Germany, and Sweden.


Difficulty factor from a technical standpoint??

Easy peasy. The technology is already there. It's scalable, and we have the instability necessary to produce an unimaginable amount of wind.

From a political standpoint??

1. You need to buy off the oil lobby, or spend more then them in any case.

2. Ditto for the coal lobby.

3. Ditto for the natural gas lobby.

4. Ditto for the nuclear lobby.

4.5 (Because the Talkabout don't do tabbing...) Then you have to overcome the utility lobbies.

5. Then you have to overcome the NIMBY's who will cry foul when you try to erect a wind farm in their backyard.

6. Then the environmentalists who think that migratory bird species are more at risk from spinning propellers than global warming.

7. Then you have to overcome the open-space preservationists, who refuse to see anything spoil an otherwise perfect environment.

8. And if you can do all of that- and actually get funding/permission, then you will need to complete a well-intentioned regulatory barrage which will definitively insure that it will be fifty years before we see any large-scale passive electricity generation in California.

I'm going to bed- I got tired just writing all of that- now imagine that multiplied 1 gajillion times and you will see why we're stuck in our own form of hell...



G'nite and sleep tite, Wonk.

Knowing Denmark is a small and densely populated country:

Population density/km2: Denmark = 133; United States = 35.

US therefore has at least 4X the transmission losses or probably more, since the bulk of the energy is transmitted long distances from the Plains to the East Coast population centers.

Building a modern new transmission grid to achieve 20% wind power will cost the US "trillions" according to this website:

Web Link

Lots of good info here.

Denmark and Norway also share wind and hydro energy resources respectively and also share with the EU.

^^^ From a political standpoint?? ^^^

How 'bout from an economics standpoint? That's what holding back these technologies, not coal or oil or nuclear or natural gas. They can't compete against those abundant and relatively cheap and reliable energy sources.

From a political standpoint, wind and solar crony capitalists need their politicians to do all they can to make fossil fuels more expensive, hence the hysterical drive to implement a carbon tax.

Nonsense. Mr. Wonk hits the nail on the head about "why not".

The crony capitalists like oil and coal.

Always money for war, but building infrastructure is "hard". Boo-hoo.

Much of China is an irreparable ecological disaster

Web Link

>>>wind and solar crony capitalists<<<

Yeah- like all the eco-friendly oil companies that accept subsidies form the US and then use them to fund research trying to disprove climate change- which some people are fond of trying to hoist as actual scientifically valid work.

2+ Trillion for Iraq- an still going, for that kind of money we could have converted the entire US to wind energy?? (According to uff...) In hindsight that would have been a much better investment.

Finally: Coaster's posit was for California, not the whole US. The geographic makeup of CA means that wind farms would never need to be much further than 100 miles at most from major population centers, and likely much less.

In the end this is about vision. Solar has (finally) started to drop to parity with oil- and US solar installations have leaped by hundreds of percent over the past year as a result. We either cling to the ancient dogmas of the past, or we change and potentially thrive. It really is that simple.



^^^ The crony capitalists like oil and coal. ^^^

Sigh. Same old same old.

Web Link

A study by the University of California Berkeley released in July and entitled The Distributional Effects of US Clean Energy Tax Credits has harsh words for the current system of energy credits in the US. In essence, it says those credits have mostly enriched the wealthy at the expense of middle class and poor citizens.

Fossil fuels don't dominate the energy market because they're subsidized by the government. They dominate the market because they're abundant, cheap and reliable energy sources. They beat alternative energy sources despite those alternatives being heavily subsidized.

Web Link

We should pursue all RE, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that they'll replace fossil fuels any time soon.

We should pursue all RE, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that they'll replace fossil fuels any time soon.

As always, that's up to us.

In 9 years, and just five years after the Civil war began we built the Brooklyn Bridge- using basically nothing more sophisticated than hand tools and steam engines, reinventing the technology of bridge-building using techniques that are still in use today.

In 15 years we went from biplanes that could barely break 250MPH to jet airplanes that could break the sound barrier- twice over as it were.

In another ten years we reliably allowed men to leave or world, placing them into orbit- in space, using analog rockets and extremely primitive technology.

Ten years after that we went from a completely terrestrial existence to an extraterrestrial one- mastering the technical complexities of spaceflight by putting men on top of a five million pound rocket that was taller than the Statue of Liberty, sending men repeatedly to the moon- and we did all of this without digital computers.

In eight years we went from barely understanding fission and fusion to creating and then controlling these almost supernatural forces. Six years after that we had compacted the technology so much that it could be placed into a submarine- which transited the arctic- under the north pole, without surfacing.

In 20 years we went from the DC-4 or the Connie- which could carry roughly 30 people each at speeds of 250MPH or so, to the 747, which could carry (in some forms) more than 500 people, halfway around the world, as speeds of .85 Mach,(550+ MPH) and too the Concorde, which could carry 100 people, at Mach 2.5, crossing the Atlantic in three hours or less.

In 10 years we went from a nation that had no high-speed and modern road network to one that is interconnected with highways that have lasted for more than 60 years- despite poor upkeep and maintenance.

If we want to do it badly enough we will find a way to do it.


^^^ If we want to do it badly enough we will find a way to do it. ^^^

But only if basic economic principles are recognized. Right now, that isn't the case with alternative energy sources.

And we don' need massive government spending to achieve it -- we need innovation from the private sector. if we continue to spend money that we don't have to shore up cronies -- as was the case with Solyndra -- we'll go from a superpower to anarchy in no time.

How uninspiring. And ridiculous. You live (or virtually cuddle) in Silicon Valkey, yet you cower. These systems are delivering. Get out of the way.

Google is in Silicon Valley, too, and they gave up on their aggressive RE project. You may want to learn why before you keep running at the mouth.

But only if you're serious about RE. If your purpose is to be a petty snipe, then carry on as you've been doing.

Facebook is building wind farms, using geothermal power, etc. Almost all data centers are moving to chillerless and some percentage of solar or other AES's as adjunct power sources. Some of it is speculative and will fail to produce the hoped results. Some will. That's science.

We can aggressively pursue all of these and should. Google switched focus from RE to R&D around power management, seeing that as more bang for the buck FOR THEM. That does not lessen the importance of RE. It provides another arrow for the quiver and a use case scenario for others to learn from.

These are not petty snipes. These are me telling you you're wrong, Honeysniffles.

That's because you haven't done the math. Google did, so feel free to challenge their findings instead of ripping on someone that points out you're breathing fairy dust.

These two blokes calculated what it would take to completely replace our current fossil fuel consumption with solar only. No backups, just solar and batteries. They're findings: a solar panel array roughly the size of the state of Ohio. That space doesn't include the additional panels needed when you consider down time for maintenance and cleaning or for storage batteries.

Lots of assumptions were made, but I think it puts things in the proper perspective: Web Link

That is a great article by Dr. Tamarin. His solution to the energy needs in the future is nuclear fusion. We need more such as him working on solutions that do not involve fossil fuels.

Web Link

Steven Hayward splashes cold water (and truth) on some of the wild RE claims made by Germany and Denmark:

Web Link

I’m waiting for a truth-in-energy moment when someone starts a green energy company called Potemkin Power.

Not intending to splash water on wind and solar, but a measure of the difficulty in replacing fossil fuels as cheap and reliable sources of energy.

Add a comment

Please login to comment on this topic.

Login Here

Create a Login

Powered by Podium