tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5251183560375528307.post2021769380123891583..comments2024-03-28T10:30:02.679-05:00Comments on Bit Tooth Energy: Tech Talk - what the EPA Plan neglectsHeading Outhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01790783659594652657noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5251183560375528307.post-10801776842521338532014-06-17T12:29:19.558-05:002014-06-17T12:29:19.558-05:00Have they published their data? It's not very...Have they published their data? It's not very useful to anybody, and it's hard to double check, if it's not published. Further, it's hard to understand such a large gap: 275GW from the NREL versus "wind doesn't work".<br /><br />In any case, Missouri imports almost all of it's coal - why not import wind power instead?Nick Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12721405349726668110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5251183560375528307.post-82568664512917180462014-06-16T22:38:12.569-05:002014-06-16T22:38:12.569-05:00Nick,
I have worked with people who have actuall...Nick,<br /> I have worked with people who have actually run the numbers for different parts of the state, and while we have a couple of small demonstration turbines in town for experimental reasons, I stand by my comments - based on their data.Heading Outhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01790783659594652657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5251183560375528307.post-12381555665458981622014-06-12T14:11:56.821-05:002014-06-12T14:11:56.821-05:00Bruce,
whatever percentage is wind power a equal ...Bruce,<br /><br /><i>whatever percentage is wind power a equal percentage has to be derived by another source that can be turned on in an instant. </i><br /><br />The same claim could be made about anything: there is no form of power that doesn't require backup, per standard ISO requirements. Yes, windpower has more variance than other power sources, but there are a wide variety of ways to deal with it: windpower is roughly as variable as consumer demand, for whose "intermittency" a variety of strategies have been developed: pooling of a number of units, Demand Side Management, overbuilding, long distance transmission (for wider pooling), diversity of sources, forecasting (variance isn't the same thing as unpredictability), etc. <br /><br />Backup is relatively expensive, so an optimal system will use other things first. Backup has a place, but we shouldn't exaggerate it - it's not really the primary strategy (unless, of course, you're a regulated utility with guaranteed capital ROI, in which case you may well build generation way past the optimal point....).Nick Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12721405349726668110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5251183560375528307.post-5887229513663955012014-06-12T14:00:45.524-05:002014-06-12T14:00:45.524-05:00HO, I think you do have wind power available.
&...HO, I think you do have wind power available. <br /><br />"According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Missouri has enough wind to capture as much as 275,000 megawatts of power – nine times the state's current electricity capacity, or enough to easily meet the state's total annual demand for electricity.[3] Many of these windy plots are relatively close to St. Louis or Kansas City, which brings down the cost of transmitting wind energy. Harnessing just a fraction of Missouri's wind power would result in a major new source of income for many farmers and rural communities. The average 269-acre Missouri farm [4] could host three to four wind turbines and bring in $18,000 to $24,000 annually from land lease payments.[5]"<br /><br />http://www.nrdc.org/energy/renewables/missouri.asp<br /><br />On the other hand, sure, some areas don't have wind, but many don't have coal area either. <br /><br />"Missouri's conventional fuel resources are slim, and energy dollars are streaming out of the state. Missourians spend about $3,000 per person each year on energy, including natural gas for heating, fuel for cars and trucks, and electricity for homes and businesses.[1] Eighty-two percent of the state's electricity comes from coal, nearly all of it shipped from Wyoming."<br /><br />The poorer nations of Asia and Africa really have enormous wind, solar and hydro resources...Nick Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12721405349726668110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5251183560375528307.post-43655676885411699132014-06-08T10:10:52.613-05:002014-06-08T10:10:52.613-05:00Nick G Its apparent you are smart and concerned fo...Nick G Its apparent you are smart and concerned for the environment. I applaud your intents. As I am sure you understand wind power requires a minute ready back up. So for a power generation build whatever percentage is wind power a equal percentage has to be derived by another source that can be turned on in an instant. <br /> It is amazing that some of the ardent environmentalist have come to the conclusion nuclear is the only realistic answer. They understand the base load issues with solar and wind, hate coal and don't like wind power's ill effects on the environment. <br /> As you suspect nuclear has a high hurdle to jump before it becomes publicly acceptable, no matter what advances have been made to its use. <br /> The issue most people don't come to grips with is the fundamental nature of cheap energy production, without it society will incur a truly terrific trauma. brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06911036379896402069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5251183560375528307.post-57478895673448491922014-06-07T17:02:38.590-05:002014-06-07T17:02:38.590-05:00Nick:
Unfortunately there are parts of the count...Nick:<br /> Unfortunately there are parts of the country (and the world) where wind doesn't work - I happen to live in one.<br /><br />However the local university, as I have noted, has just closed it's coal fired power plant and moved over to geothermal and natural gas. <br /><br />Unfortunately such options are likely not available for the poorer nations of Asia and Africa which will continue to, and likely to increasingly use coal as a cheaper indigenous source than more expensive imported alternatives.Heading Outhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01790783659594652657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5251183560375528307.post-4994946162399015972014-06-07T13:07:55.627-05:002014-06-07T13:07:55.627-05:00Then, there are the indirect costs of coal:
occup...Then, there are the indirect costs of coal: <br />occupational health costs, CO2, sulfur/acid rain, mercury in food, water consumption, adding up to $.18 per kWh ($345B/year): <br /><br /><br />"The United States' reliance on coal to generate almost half of its electricity, costs the economy about $345 billion a year in hidden expenses not borne by miners or utilities, including health problems in mining communities and pollution around power plants, a study found. <br /><br /><br />Those costs would effectively triple the price of electricity produced by coal-fired plants, which are prevalent in part due to their low cost of operation, the study led by a Harvard University researcher found. <br /><br /><br />"This is not borne by the coal industry, this is borne by us, in our taxes," said Paul Epstein, a Harvard Medical School instructor and the associate director of its Center for Health and the Global Environment, the study's lead author. <br /><br /><br />"The public cost is far greater than the cost of the coal itself. The impacts of this industry go way beyond just lighting our lights." <br /><br /><br />http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/02/16/us-usa-coal-study-idUKTRE71F4X820110216?rpc=401&feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=401 or http://solar.gwu.edu/index_files/Resources_files/epstein_full%20cost%20of%20coal.pdf <br /><br />or here's the link to the pay-wall-protected version if desired: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05890.x/full Nick Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12721405349726668110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5251183560375528307.post-18890348756212772682014-06-07T13:04:33.450-05:002014-06-07T13:04:33.450-05:00Clearly, it would be prudent to build out wind pow...Clearly, it would be prudent to build out wind power, which is already cheaper in the US than new coal and which would be cheaper than NG at $8.<br /><br />If you charge a decent amount of carbon tax, the advantages of wind would become even greater.Nick Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12721405349726668110noreply@blogger.com