Wind Energy Looks Bad
I hope everyone had a great Memorial Day weekend. I just rolled back into town after breaking away for a day to the lake house in Vermont. While stuffing my face for a few days and spending some time on the lake, I couldn’t help but notice a small wind farm built on a ridge near the house. For 20 years I enjoyed the view without the "green" additions, but I can certainly say I am not a fan of the behemoths sticking out of the mountainside. NIMBY
The farm consists of about 15 1.5-3.0 megawatt turbines. During the day they provide a type of sleek modernism to the mountains but at night the towers start to piss me off. Large blinking red lights on the top of each tower ward off aircraft but provide an annoying, unsolicited light show for anyone in the area. I made an appearance at the one bar in town and the consensus among the locals was anti towers. Keep in mind that this is a hippie bar (complete with bare feet, serious BO and apparently an absence of a razor within 50 miles).
This got me thinking. If hippie Vermonters don’t want wind energy, then who the hell really thinks wind should be part of a green energy transition in the U.S? Please factor in my decreased property value and personal disgust with the view next time you run a DCF for one of these. When you breakdown the financing for these projects, it's clear that they only exists through some significant government funding. Why don't we just concentrate these things in a few central locations instead of polluting everyone's view?
Has anybody ever thought of placing some type of turbine underwater, where strong currents can spin those things? They already have ugly offshore wind turbines, why not underwater turbines that generate energy from a constant, strong current that runs on gravity?
Seems like an unlimited supply of clean energy to me, unlike wind, as that is dependent on the weather.
yeah, tidal turbines are astronomically expensive...
A big chunk of the expense that is often overlooked is figuring out how to get the generated electricity to the mainland power grid. The future doesn't look good for tidal generation. The only viable "green" alternative (besides hydroelectric) is space-based solar or nuclear fusion (way less likely).
You mean tidal power and yes.
Nation’s First ‘Underwater Wind Turbine’ Installed in Old Man River http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/hydrokinetic/
New York City's East River Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy (RITE) Project http://verdantpower.com/what-initiative/
Giant tidal turbine 'performing well' in tests off Orkney http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18096372
London Tidal Turbine To Undergo ‘Proof-of-Concept’ Testing http://cleantechnica.com/2011/06/07/london-tidal-turbine-to-undergo-%E2…
They already do that. Its called "hydroelectricity".
I could imagine. Oh well, we should be more focused on Nat Gas rather than building some giant pinwheels in the sky.
wind energy is actually among the most effective green energies in existence. wtf does "we should be more focused on Nat Gas" even mean?
investing in renewables is awful, especially if you need subsidies to survive. if you need government help, stay away, its not a viable business.
corn, soy, petroleum...
worded wrong, i meant subsidies to turn a profit. Look at the PPAs renewables need to operate. oil does not get a lot compared to the renewables, i dont know about corn or soy
Have you ever enjoyed the view of an open-cut coal mine?
http://i.imgur.com/gj0p7.png
If I'm not mistaken, wind farms can't really be more concentrated, because they need very wide swaths of land in order to actually produce appreciable amounts of energy.
Me? I think we should be putting more into nuclear. It's clean(ish), safe(ish), and already has the potential to account for pretty much all of the world's energy needs. Why not use it?
Nuclear projects often need subsidies to produce a return. Basically Nuclear energy is for Republicans and Green Energy is for Democrats. They are the mirror image of one another in-terms of financial viability.
In all seriousness, the reason nuclear needs so many subsidies is the anti-nuclear industry. The cost is not in the plant construction; 70% of it is in the litigation and environmental studies.
But once built, it costs 0.5cents/kwh to operate a nuclear plant. This is 1/15th the cost of wind; 1/10th the cost of natural gas.
The biggest advantage to alternative energy is to make smaller grids, or to make any particular building self-sufficent. Nuclear is a way to go, in some cases(maybe not California, Japan) but it keeps everyone on a large, unwieldy power grid. It makes sense to me that you should be able to generate your own energy, off the grid, and never have to worry about huge blackouts again.
I don't see nuclear fission being the way of the future anymore. It's been gutted by policymakers.
.
I agree in that Wind or Solar can really ruin the aesthetic quality of the landscape. On the other hand if you take melting icecaps, widespread flooding, new ice age, starvation, living underground, cannabilism, mutation, human extinction and discount them at 15% WACC (Weighted Average Cost of Convenience) over 100 years, I think the negative impact of having an obstruction of your view in Vermont may be offset just a little. Of course if we increase the WACC to 20%, then we get a whole different story and need to immediately tear down every wind turbine, solar panel, and hydroelectric dam.
Seriously though, they have developed offshore wind turbines and are currently developing programs for deep water (50m+) offshore wind projects.
FSLR, 'nough said. most of the solar demand is in Europe where austerity measures are being worked in. not to mention the exorbitant expenses that come along with the implementation and maintenance of solar panels.
Offshore wind farms - large groups of doubly fed induction generators at deepwater sites, connected via a high voltage DC transmission system to the grid. Controllable output of wind power and NIMBYless.
Could probably do with an onshore energy storage system (incentivised by scope for energy price arbitrage), which would regulate the power output. High build cost (although the generators are cheaper than other generators because they use smaller power electronics), but just needs further development in how they handle grid faults.
It's hard to concentrate wind turbines because they have to be very separated and you can't put too many of them together because you change the dynamics of the air flow, making it much more turbulent and therefore it becomes exponentially more inefficient to increase the size of the park to the point where you won't generate anything at all. And there is no way to avoid that. It's the reason why you won't see them very close to a forest or in valley for example. So the amount of land you need grows exponentially. It's also difficult because you generally won't have a huge piece of land with uniform wind conditions. The best way to do this is probably huge offshore parks, the further from land the better. Ideally some huge thing in the middle of the pacific/atlantic, but transporting that energy becomes very expensive, technically difficult and you would have a lot of power losses so it wouldn't be as efficient. Point is, you need to compromise something.
Tidal power doesn't work very well. Power lines become a pain in the ass, the turbines needed are much more expensive than the ones used in regular hydroelectric plants and need a different design because the pressure in the system is much greater. A big problem is also the fact that unlike what the first guy to suggest it said, currents are very variable and extremely seasonal, so you can either produce electricity smth like 6 months a year or create an uber-expensive orientation system. And you also have to account for (and pay for) material deterioration in salted water, which is huge.
It's all just a matter of what you're willing to sacrifice to get clean and sustainable energy. For example, if we covered the Sahara desert with solar panels we could produce enough power for the whole planet. You could do that on 1 or 2 deserts per continent for example. But you would lose these great wonders the deserts are.
Observation. Both technologies have their traditional party backers and voting blocks. Both are on the government dole and enjoy loan guarantees, tax credits and nuclear has a federal cap on the liability that nuclear power plant owners face in case of accidents (the Price-Anderson Act). I am speaking generally of course as some crossovers exists on both sides of the isles.
I have an idea for all of the people who complain that renewable energy facilities don't look pretty, or are ruining their view. Lets round them up, put them on treadmills and stationary bikes, and plug them into the grid
I think the idea here is that wind isn't a fix all or even a partial fix in the context of national renewable energy. Its easy to say the aesthetic damage from these farms is worth it when you consider eliminating the damage of global warming but the reality may be that one does not eliminate or even meaningfully reduce that damage through the use of wind farms. The damage calculations are now different as the aesthetic damages are the same but the overall environmental benefits could be significantly reduced. Good intentions doesn't mean the technology is a viable idea or that the governments money is being efficiently spent. Its not about NIMBY concepts, its about whether the aesthetic and property costs (which are real, not imaginary) are compensated by the environmental benefits. Also consider that the U.S. is considering a 30% tax on major wind tower components from overseas to boost U.S. wind component sales. No one is trying to achieve cost minimization and the fact that these projects exist through subsidies already makes we wary of the net benefits of these projects.
http://blakemasters.tumblr.com/post/23787022006/peter-thiels-cs183-star…
It's going to be a nuclear world...
Not only is it ugly it also does shit all to reduce emissions and keep reliability in the grid.
http://www.bentekenergy.com/WindPowerParadox.aspx , is the best study done.
http://theenergycollective.com/node/64492
Am I the only one who thinks wind turbines don't look bad or that the people who are bothered by the aesthetics are just whining?
A PV solar cell is only about 10% efficient; even an internal combustion engine is only 20% efficient. A boiling water nuclear reactor, on the other hand, enjoys 31-33% thermal efficiency and many natural gas turbines enjoy 45%-55%. The thermal solar power tower system also enjoys much higher efficiency than at-home PV solar. Shipping the electricity through the system only costs you 2-5%, taken off of the thermal efficiency, so you get a lot more electrical bang for the buck by using the utility's turbines and generators rather than trying to use your own.
But yes, generating your own electricity is a heckuvalot more tax efficient. A 0% tax offset of consumption sure as heck beats investing in the local electric company, having them pay 35% corporate tax, and then paying 15% dividend tax when you get the profits out.
Then you also have to deal with what happens when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine, or more importantly, starting the compressor on your Air Conditioner. I am moving back into graduate student dorms this fall which are not air-conditioned and have a prohibition on window ACs because they require huge amp surges to start their compressors. I am desperately trying to find a capacitor or small battery device that will get them to bend this rule, but I am having trouble finding something that can provide a 10 amp boost for five seconds without affecting the system.
If you power your home solely on solar cells or wind turbines, let me just say good luck trying to get an AC started.
I thought this might interest you. It took me by surprise when I noticed it. And, I read another story that power traders in the EU trading spot markets have to react more quickly to short-term weather forecasts than previously.
Doesn't help with the AC in your room, but thought you might be interested.
http://dvice.com/archives/2012/05/germany-got-hal.php
Great points...
Get ready for the IPO, this is where it's at.
http://www.bloomenergy.com/
Distinctio quia magni natus dolorem harum voluptatem ex officia. Architecto nobis exercitationem velit animi. Blanditiis numquam non sapiente a sint. Et dolor delectus ut odio officia.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Blanditiis non quod sed et laudantium. Qui quia omnis eligendi pariatur. Harum aut sit alias sit autem facilis illo. Deserunt atque inventore consequatur magnam repellat pariatur vel.
Et deleniti in vel provident beatae. Sed velit in pariatur numquam. Vel omnis itaque sequi tempore. Non autem totam et repellendus dolorum aut vel.