T. Boone Pickens Speaks

[Tempest]

Quote:
Not at all. You have a current 120% capacity with conventional power production (in whatever form it is). You then install wind generators. Those plants then reduce production as power is available.

That ASSUMES that you have 120% capacity. We are going to need more than we already do and by quite a bit. Coal, nuclear = reliable. Wind...not.
If 20% of your RATED power potential comes from wind, but it only delivers half of that 2/3 of the time, you would need 90% conventional capacity to have a reliable system.

If you want to say that wind supplements your 100% conventional coverage fine...as long as the economics work out. Since they are not in wide spread use and the technology has been around for a long time, it makes me question this.

IF the windmills are economically viable (i.e. no need for gov. help) in a particular area, then I have no problem with them. Individuals that have them like Shannow's farmer and those in Texas that make a profit off of them (with or without subsidizes???) are a good thing.

 

[Shannow]

Quote:
Firstly, to say that you need to have as much "traditional" power as there is wind is sort of factual.

But to say that you need 90% of the installed wind capacity "just in case" is silly.

These seem to be in conflict??

Refer back to my post.

My state currently needs 12GW peak capacity, growing at around 7% per annum (thanks to air conditioners).

The article that you linked stated that if the 12GW was supplied by wind, they would need an extra 11GW sitting there in case the wind stopped...total would be 23GW of equipment to supply 12 "reliably"....that's the silly part.

My point was that over 50% of the supply should be heavy, high inertia equipment (such as coal), with the ability to respond to system instabilities...so in my state, wind farms and unsynchronised hydros can be installed to keep meeting demand growth until there's 11GW of wind...when the market has grown to 23GW, not 12GW wind with 11GW thermal back-up.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
so in my state, wind farms and unsynchronised hydros can be installed to keep meeting demand growth until there's 11GW of wind...when the market has grown to 23GW, not 12GW wind with 11GW thermal back-up.

How reliable is that 11GW of wind?

 

[Shannow]

Wind farms are nearly 100% "reliable".

I think that you are referring to "available".

If you want your wind farms more available, you don't put them all in the one place... spread them out, and more often than not, you'll have the majority producing a decent output.

http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/maps.html

Look at the maps...you could have decent generation on both the East and West of your country. The wind isn't going to stop across the whole country on the same day.

 

[Panzerman]

I will never cease to be amazed at the number of people that hate fossil fuels and the oil industry that you find...Where...on a oil site. Go figure.

 

[Shannow]

Where has anyone in this thread mentioned that they "hate" oil and fossil fuels or the oil industry ?

Developing alternatives to a finite resource that we are using at an immense pace isn't hatred...at least in Oz.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: Tempest

That ASSUMES that you have 120% capacity. We are going to need more than we already do and by quite a bit. Coal, nuclear = reliable. Wind...not.

You are missing the big picture. A wind turbine's max capacity is 1.5 MW usually is is less than a megawat. Now lets say you Have several wind turbines per grid. Statistically they will at any given moment generate a given amount. Individual turbines may bounce around a bit but again with a couple thousand of them it will pretty much even out.

Its just like load: Millions of motors and loads go on and off all of the time its not a big deal. But statistically its a smooth curve. Voltage will be a bit higher if load is low and nothing else happens or it might be a bit lower.

Same as windmills. It is really not rocket science. Many turbines = smooth generation They don't all go up and down as a single unit.

Originally Posted By: Shannow
The wind isn't going to stop across the whole country on the same day.


ding-ding-ding..that's what he is not seeing.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: Panzerman
I will never cease to be amazed at the number of people that hate fossil fuels

Please let me know where you saw this. But I hate paying $140/barrel maybe you like that idea.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: Tempest


IF the windmills are economically viable (i.e. no need for gov. help)


Every power plant gets "help". I'm paying for a $4B nuke that is supposed to be providing power to south Jersey via the power pool. They get $0.025/kw ..I get to pay for the plant.

You can't put a nuke just anywhere. Nor can you put windmills just anywhere (although, finding wind might be easier than finding a good enough water supply for your cooling). There are lots of passed on costs in connecting the needed provider and distribute it through the various power pools.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: Panzerman
I will never cease to be amazed at the number of people that hate fossil fuels and the oil industry that you find...Where...on a oil site. Go figure.


Who hates fossil fuels? They're getting expensive and sooner or later there has to be alternatives brought into play to replace them. There will always be need for petroleum in one form or another and until we crack the energy nut, I want to assure that there's going to be enough to go around.

Now ...is there some reason you don't want to develop alternative energy sources or alternative energy technologies? If we don't achieve sustainable energy independence, you can kiss anything near a lifestyle that you've experienced ..good bye. Like the social evolutions we're experiencing? The decay ..the rising costs ...the degraded condition of goods and services? Well, just get used to it and expect more of it.

This isn't a myth or a scam or a con. Those are what got us to this "shock and awe" without us noticing. This is real and wishing for the good old days is just not possible.

 

[Duffman77]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Now ...is there some reason you don't want to develop alternative energy sources or alternative energy technologies?


Polar Politics
One of the few poison pills that is killing America. Republicans have no interest in alternative energy or any attemps at conservation. Democrats are opposed to drilling and fast tracking other conventional solutions. Clearly only a mixed bag will solve the problem but the 2 party system cant agree on anything.

I saw a great comment on another forum. "Vote against the incumbants in the the upcomming elections, they are the ones that put us in this mess."

 

[jsharp]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: jsharp
Originally Posted By: Shannow

As to junk economics, an (obviously) insane farmer a few miles away started a company, and installed 2 660kW machines (pics are in the photo's section). This was before wind became popular. His installed cost was just over 70% of the cost per kW of a new coal fired power station. He pays no fuel costs whatsoever. His cattle wander around unconcerned with the machine...and his farm income is augmented by losing the utility of a couple of dozen square metres of paddock.


It sounds as if he's unable to purchase power otherwise. Is this correct or was it simply cheaper to build his own plant vs. buying from an existing utility? Or possibly the size is such that it's economical?


Nope, he built his own 1.3MW windfarm to sell electricity into the grid at a profit. Cost him around $2M, and is now an extra source of farm income.


I'd be curious about the payback timeframe. We looked at 20KW-60KW units, much smaller than his, and the payback period was 25-30 years best case.

That was one of the reasons I asked about the size of his setup too...

 

[jsharp]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Tempest

That ASSUMES that you have 120% capacity. We are going to need more than we already do and by quite a bit. Coal, nuclear = reliable. Wind...not.

You are missing the big picture. A wind turbine's max capacity is 1.5 MW usually is is less than a megawat. Now lets say you Have several wind turbines per grid. Statistically they will at any given moment generate a given amount. Individual turbines may bounce around a bit but again with a couple thousand of them it will pretty much even out.

Its just like load: Millions of motors and loads go on and off all of the time its not a big deal. But statistically its a smooth curve. Voltage will be a bit higher if load is low and nothing else happens or it might be a bit lower.

Same as windmills. It is really not rocket science. Many turbines = smooth generation They don't all go up and down as a single unit.

Originally Posted By: Shannow
The wind isn't going to stop across the whole country on the same day.


ding-ding-ding..that's what he is not seeing.


All of this does skew the numbers though. If you need to put up many wind plants of a given output spread across the country then you're not adding the total capacity of the generators you install except at times with they're all available. You're adding the total of the plants * the overall availability percentage.

 

[jsharp]

Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Now ...is there some reason you don't want to develop alternative energy sources or alternative energy technologies?


Polar Politics
One of the few poison pills that is killing America. Republicans have no interest in alternative energy or any attemps at conservation. Democrats are opposed to drilling and fast tracking other conventional solutions. Clearly only a mixed bag will solve the problem but the 2 party system cant agree on anything.

I saw a great comment on another forum. "Vote against the incumbants in the the upcomming elections, they are the ones that put us in this mess."



Plus add all of the nongovernmental organizations into the mix. People like the Sierra Club who will hold up in court any kind of conventional plant and you have 100% gridlock.

Incumbents survive by - "He may be a crook, but he's our crook."

I'll add to voting against incumbents - always vote NO on judicial retention ballots. The longer they're in office, the more cozy they get with a given set of people...

 

[jsharp]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Wind farms are nearly 100% "reliable".

I think that you are referring to "available".

If you want your wind farms more available, you don't put them all in the one place... spread them out, and more often than not, you'll have the majority producing a decent output.

http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/maps.html

Look at the maps...you could have decent generation on both the East and West of your country. The wind isn't going to stop across the whole country on the same day.


No the wind won't stop overall. But the number of plants required will need to be larger by the overall wind availability percentage.

This is what never seems to get mentioned in those "Company X to provide Y amount of new electrical capacity with wind!!" press statements. Adding an alleged amount of wind generation and getting it's real output close to that number may require many wind plants of the rated size spread over a large area.

KW output doesn't mean much to me. KWh does mean something.

 

[Steve S]

Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Now ...is there some reason you don't want to develop alternative energy sources or alternative energy technologies?


Polar Politics
One of the few poison pills that is killing America. Republicans have no interest in alternative energy or any attemps at conservation. Democrats are opposed to drilling and fast tracking other conventional solutions. Clearly only a mixed bag will solve the problem but the 2 party system cant agree on anything.

I saw a great comment on another forum. "Vote against the incumbants in the the upcomming elections, they are the ones that put us in this mess."
The incumbents both parties are the fault for our energy problem yet over all they have been reelected over and over again . For example A.Gore was vice pres and a senator ? What did he do during his terms in office? 'About anything" Is there all of a sudden an energy problem any one remember the 1970 gas problems? We are a bunch of sheep waiting to be sheered.

 

[Steve S]

Wind mills and solar are extras not reliable or consistant . there is a reason that nuke ,solar ,wind.generation is an add on not really able to be the total source but not to be discounted if they are economically doable. I have been looking at solar for the last 15 years and I can't make the figure$ work. I would do a grid connected system . I know some people off the grid due to where they live because the cost of running power to their house was so expensive the solar panels ,generator and battries etc was the way to go .

 

[jsharp]

I can't make wind work either $$ and I have pretty constant wind here in the Prairie. The payback is such that at 52 I won't live to see the day I break even...

 

[Duffman77]

Originally Posted By: Steve S
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Now ...is there some reason you don't want to develop alternative energy sources or alternative energy technologies?


Polar Politics
One of the few poison pills that is killing America. Republicans have no interest in alternative energy or any attemps at conservation. Democrats are opposed to drilling and fast tracking other conventional solutions. Clearly only a mixed bag will solve the problem but the 2 party system cant agree on anything.

I saw a great comment on another forum. "Vote against the incumbants in the the upcomming elections, they are the ones that put us in this mess."
The incumbents both parties are the fault for our energy problem yet over all they have been reelected over and over again . For example A.Gore was vice pres and a senator ? What did he do during his terms in office? 'About anything" Is there all of a sudden an energy problem any one remember the 1970 gas problems? We are a bunch of sheep waiting to be sheered.


You prove my point exactly about polar politics, Gore has been out of office for 7.5 years, has nothing to do with Pickens yet he still is a lightening rod on the political landsape which can be blamed for everything enviromental. His power is done and gone people get over it.

 

[jsharp]

What's to get over? Gore is still right in the middle of it. More so than ever in fact.

He's all over the world hawking his carbon credits trading scheme and last year he joined venture capital company Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers to be in the middle of their push into alternate energy investments.

Once again, follow the money...