"wmbjk" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:21:13 -0700, "Roger Shoaf"
wrote:
"wmbjk" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:34:00 -0700, "Roger Shoaf"
wrote:
So who is doing the quoting?
Sorry, you'll have to do better than an anti-wind site if you want me
to take you seriously. I happen to own a couple of wind generators, so
a blogger's diatribe doesn't mean much to me.
So you do not like what the professor is saying because it disagrees with
your belief. Thank you for being frank.
Your cite was an opinion piece, well worth what we paid for it.
This sounds like the source of a well informed opinion.
Dr. Howard C. Hayden
Emeritus Professor of Physics
University of Connecticut
(32 years at UConn)
Many
in the know
This is just another way of saying "they".
accept that intermittent renewables (which would be mostly
wind due to economics) might contribute as much as 20% of our grid
needs without additional storage. Nobody can say for sure whether that
figure is attainable, and the amount of current wind capacity doesn't
have anything to do with it.
Since you own two wind generators, how much does it generate and what did
it
cost?
We have 1300 Watts (nameplate) of wind power, and 2000 Watts of solar.
The system cost about $30k and generates all of our energy for a
modern, well equipped, all electric home in the southwest. The wind
generators cost about $2k, the tower about as much again, and they
supply about a quarter of our energy needs. That part varies from zero
to 100% daily depending on the weather.
So do you have a meter on this system or are you just estimating how much
you generate?
Seems to me that your 1,300 watt wind turbines would only produce power when
the wind is blowing at a pretty good clip. Are you in an area that the wind
blows hard and steady?
As to your solar system, if that produces 2,000 watts of power how is that
attained? When I was looking into this it seemed to produce peak power only
for several hours on a sunny day as the angle of the sun had something to do
with it. Also even if you are getting 2,000 watts of power you get that as
a DC voltage that then has to be rectified to AC and regulated to line
voltage. To do this it also costs yopu some of the energy you captured.
What does this net to you?
At Professor Haden's website he says the following:
North Carolina State University gives an estimate of the day-by-day power
outut from a 50 Watt Panel in Raleigh N.C. The panel faces south and is
tipped at 35º from the horizontal.
During July, there are 5.41 hours of peak sun, and some sort of (thermal?)
degradation factor applies (8%). The result is 249 watt-hours per day.
In December, the panel will produce 161 watt-hours per day.
These figures for the "50-watt" panel amount to day-long averages of 10.4
watts in July and 6.7 watts in December.
Go Solar! Yeah!
data from:
http://www.ncsc.ncsu.edu/
(North Carolina State University)
=============== end quote========================
So if all factors were the same between NCSU and you, your 2,000 watt solar
system would net you 9960 watts per day in July and 268 watts per day in
December.
It might be a little more at your location, but not that much more and you
still are going to have losses converting that power into line voltage so
your air conditioner can use it.
Seems to me that you dropped $30k to make some very expensive electricity.
We have not built any new plants in the US, but new plants have been
built
overseas. As far as reality goes, politics is the reason we have not
built
any nukes recently. Politics can and does change.
Yes, and when GW took office, the renewkables claimed that new plants
would be springing up like mushrooms. Yet even with complete GOP
control, here's the reality of new nukes
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/st...517234152.html
I didn't say anything about presidential politics. My support for
nuclear
power is that it is clean, cheap and abundant.
It is neither clean, cheap or abundant.... except on Usenet.
Clean, it produces no emissions like hydrocarbons do.
Cheap, fuel costs are low, and even when you factor in capitol investment
and labor to run the place for 50 years and decommission it it still makes
economic sense.
Abundent, uranium is so common we could generate power for thousands of
years without any trouble.
Cheap power is a good thing.
Well sure, and that's exactly why wind farms are being built and nukes
aren't. Wind power is very nearly competitive with that of
conventional plants, except that wind power doesn't have the added
pollution costs or the need for cooling water.
Nucular plants are being built, just not in this country. Coolling water?
2/3 of the earth is covered with water.
As to your assesment that Nevada's NIMBY suits are going to be a final
stumbling block to nuclear power I disagree.
Disagree all you want, but the market has spoken.
The market? Like I pointed out before other countries are going nuclear in
a big way and they aren't going broke doing it either.
Renewkables were
pinning their hopes on Yucca, but the future of that is in grave doubt
due to Congressional unwillingness to fund it, and the court's
unwillingness to override scientific standards. Not to mention the 55%
chance that it'll be history come November. :-)
Well as long as we continue to burn coal we dump tons of radioactive crud
into our air and have to deal with the tons of the radioactive material left
in the slag heaps. There is also murcury and lots of other nasties dumped
from the coal plants stacks that will continue until they are replaced.
That problem is real and the polution is killing and injuring thousands each
year. The longer we delay the worse of a problem it will be.
You also must have been not paying too much attention to the facts already
presented, the Yucca Facility has been bought and paid for already. All
thats left is the NIMBY's.
Fear was the tool that the
anti nuclear power lobby used to slow the progress of nuclear power, and
a
rational discussion of the facts will be the tool that brings it back.
What you mean by "rational discussion" is something more like
"willingness to accept increased risk". Ain't going to happen in our
lifetime. But just for fun, let's say that science, government,
investors and the public all had a change of heart. Let's allow ten
years for that, and another ten for permitting and construction.
You're still looking at two decades before the first new plant. A
*lot* of wind power could go up in the meantime, which is why everyone
should be pushing for it. Unfortunately most renewkables see wind and
solar as nails in nuke's coffin, so they actively argue against all
renewables every chance they get.
Solar or wind are not the end of nuclear power. They are just technology
that has a hard time competing.
By rational discussion I mean one that the participants are willing to weigh
the different points of view and let the strongest arguments prevail over
the weaker ones.
--
Roger Shoaf
About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
they come up with this striped stuff.