There has been a considerable amount of discussion here in the west concerning wind farms and wind turbines. With government hand outs and subsidies to install them, we that enjoy public land and public land access need to be aware that with every wind farm, access will be blocked or ended. Currently, with oil and gas fields on public land, you and I still have access, but with turbines those lands will be off limits.

Well kudu having seen your signature line, I am not sure you are ready for facts but:
1. The gasoline engine is less efficient than 35%.
2. Even at 35%, wind is FREE! Understand?
3. There is absolutely a shortage of electricity in the USA due to INCREASED demand and older power plants having to be replaced. That is why there are plenty of applications for permits to build.
4. Yes, I agree that with wind turbines access would be restricted. How big a price is this to pay for less dependence on foreign oil?
Peter.

There is only an oil shortage if you don't understand basic economics or capitalism.

The wind farms take more energy to create than they will ever produce. Far from being "free", they are far more expensive to power than the engine in your car.

If the government regulating bodies would get out of the way, we could build some neculear power plants and make some construction jobs available, plus have cheap electric. I've heard the big fans only work 17% of the time here in the midwest and they are absolutely an eyesore!

If the "stimulus" package had been legit and conformed to Socialist theory instead of being a giant boondoggle of pork, it would have funded the construction of 50-100 nuclear power plants; this would have conformed with all the stated goals of the stimulus package.

Socialist theory prescribes the government creation of heavy infrastructure as a means of achieving prosperity; you can see this theory at work in the Soviet 5 Year Plans.

I don't believe in the Socialist economic model, but Democratic party clearly espouses it; the irony is that they are so ignorant of the origins of their beliefs that they can't even act in accordance with them.

Analog, if you read my post I did NOT say there was an oil shortage. I said that there was a dependence on foreign oil. There is a difference. The US consumes 20 million barrels a day which is more than we produce, and, more than we CAN produce in any sustainable way. That's all I am saying, but I think it should be motivation enough.
Peter.

analog_peninsula beat me to the punch. Wind may be free but the wind turbines are anything but free!

Wind power is wishful thinking. It cannot and will not replace fossil fuels. Ever. If anything wind will increase the consumption of oil and natural gas for electrical power consumption.

Wind energy is at best, fickle. The power output fluctuates moment by moment. You can't build a power grid on an unpredictable, unreliable and uncontrollable energy source. There is no practical way to store alternating curret. Since we Americans are spoiled and expect the lights to come on every time we flip the switch there must be an ever present source of backup power available. Coal is being legislated out. Enter natural gas and oil.

Wind energy projects are newsworthy but the construction of oil and gas fired "peaking" power plants all over the country goes almost unnoticed. It's been said that the real plan behind the "Pickens Plan" is not wind power but what's been called "gaslighting," increasing the use of natural gas (and oil) for power generation. (I wonder if T. Boone Pickens has any gas or oil holdings? I'll bet he does!)

I could go on about the technical details of wind power such as the poor power factor and the inability of wind power to act as a standalone energy source. (The largest wind turbine built can't even power a night light bulb unless its connected to the power grid.)

Wind energy will never be an economically viable large scale power.

Even with subsides, the giant wind farm in West Texas (I belive it's one of Pickens') has cancelled plans to install the remaining 400 turbines. The cost of bringing the power to the grid was too high for a sustainable enterprise. Pickens has hard orders for those 400 towers and is looking for an alternate site.

This tells me the man's business plan bet on sustainable increases in electricity prices in the short run and it didn't happen. So much for the oil and gas shortage.

And what has the efficiency of a vehicle motor have to do in a discussion about generating electricity, anyway?

When was the last nuclear plant built here? Who is it again that wants green energy, but doesn't allow nuclear plants?

First of all there is no reduction in the demand for electricity, recession/depression, whatever you want to call it may slow down the growth of electrical demand but it will not reduce demand on anything other than a short term basis. Likewise conservation efforts do nothing over the long term other than slow the demand growth. I've been running, building, developing and maintaining power plants for the last 20 years so I believe that I know something about the subject.

Secondly, fuel is free but in wind power that is not what drives the cost of their of electricity production. The issue with wind power is that they are small volume generators, individual units produce on average less than one megawatt of power each and the very largest units are only producing 2-3 megawatts at the current time. So the material and maintenance cost of building, operating and maintaining so many small units is huge compared to operating a 300-1,500 megawatt commercial power plant. It takes too much wind to drive larger units so any windfarms have to be made up of hundreds or thousands of units to produce any significant amount of electricity. Also they only produce maximum capacity at an optimum wind speed of about 20 knots, if wind speeds are lower than that they produce less output and if winds get above about 30 knots they have to be completely shutdown because they cannot handle the torque generated by the high winds.

At the curent market price for natural gas it costs about 4 cents per kilowatt-hour to produce electricity from our 40+% efficient gas turbine plants and the last number that I saw for wind power in California the average cost for their production was about 13 cents per kilowatt-hour.

On track: yes more land will be sealed off from hunting and other uses.

Off track: Oregon State University has a great design for small nuc plants that is ready to be built. I've been to their site seveal times. All we need is the will to overcome the lefties/loonies and move this country forward. We are moving in the wrong direction now.

quote:

Originally posted by Fjold:
Also they only produce maximum capacity at an optimum wind speed of about 20 knots, if wind speeds are lower than that they produce less output and if winds get above about 30 knots they have to be completely shutdown because they cannot handle the torque generated by the high winds.

Today's turbine is a little different, check the power curve at page 18 in this brochure about a 3MW V112 Vestas, it can take wind up to about 50 knots before shutdown and yes it produce full power from arround 20 knots

Sorry Peter, but wind is definitely NOT free. I live smack dab in the middle of a 50,000 acre developing wind farm and I can assure you that all of us got paid for our wind rights.

As for restrictions on hunting....every lease had written into it that hunting rights were guaranteed to the landowners or their assigns.

Virtually 100% of the wind development on the high plains--the prime area for new development--is private, not public land. The limiting factor for wind farms is NOT the cost of production, but rather ease of access to high voltage transmission power lines. And according to the folks at the Western Power Administration--who just dropped a pile of paperwork on me & my neighbors--those are "incoming". But, we'll get right-of-way payments for those too.

Free?, NOT!

This POS needs to be down in the Political Crater.

So much mis-information and hyperbole is being spewed around about these things and few of you seem to have any real working knowledge of the damn things, at least the ones they are putting up here in Texas.

Plainview is one of the few giving out real time information.

From what I know of the attitude of landowners in the area northwest of Fort Worth and south of Wichita Falls, the majoirty of them are welcoming the wind generators with open arms.

Some companies are even forming that are trying to build power grids for just local areas, much like the old type city owned and operated electric companies.

How many smaller to medium sized towers would be required to run the homes and businesses in a town of say 4000 people?

Well that is just exactly what some folks are talking about doing, building a power grid that serves just one community/town area.

As for wind being free, not anymore at least in Texas.

In addition to the below surface mineral rights, land sold now is done with percentages of possible future wind generated electricity being figured into the equation.

Would having wind farms built on Public Land be a good thing, No, because they would remove land from Public use.

JMO but the wind farms need to be built on Private Lands only.

quote:

The limiting factor for wind farms is NOT the cost of production, but rather ease of access to high voltage transmission power lines

Agreed!
Peter.

quote:

First of all there is no reduction in the demand for electricity, recession/depression, whatever you want to call it may slow down the growth of electrical demand but it will not reduce demand on anything other than a short term basis. Likewise conservation efforts do nothing over the long term other than slow the demand growth. I've been running, building, developing and maintaining power plants for the last 20 years so I believe that I know something about the subject.

The issue to me is not the generation, it is the loss of access to public lands in the west due to wind farms. Oil and gas have allowed access since the beginning, but the wind farms have brought about road closers and 1000's of acres off limits.
I don;t know of a single company that imports oil or gas to run a power plant????

I read a few years ago (sorry if the numbers have changed, but it really doesn't matter that much) that the United States of America at that time consumed some 60% of the world's production in oil.
The problem is we only had 40% of the known oil resources at that time and production capability was only about 50% of that.
Which means if the USA had tapped EVERY SINGLE KNOW RESOURCE at our disposal, we could have at best only supplied about two-thirds of the oil the USA required if we could actually refine it, which we could not.

So no matter when you went to school (new math, etc.) 60% does not equal 40%.

And Frank is right. If there was a "Holy Grail" of windpower, EVERY NEWSPAPER IN THE FREE WORLD would be proclaming it as the new hope for the future.
Not happening, sorry...

When you pencil out the cost VS. output for windpower, it doesn't make sense.

Yes I understand the meaning of losing hunting grounds. But apparently the blame falls on the private land owners who can restrict their land to anybody now whether it is about wind generation or whatever.
It sucks, but what is there to do?

quote:

Originally posted by LeonardC:
We are moving in the wrong direction now.

This is the most true statement on this whole thread.

I looked into these guys for a remote project a while ago. Even this is only kind-of feasable.

Small Nuclear Plants

We have that big ball of fire in the sky that comes up each morning. Strange to me that we just can't seem to harness it efficiently........or the public electric utilities can't figure out how to produce solar energy without some young geek, like Bill Gates was, coming along with a better solution allowing us to buy a $200 kit at Wal-Mart and get the solar energy direct from the sun without a utility bill atached.

The utilities are like the oil companies, they want a better / cheaper energy source, but only if THEY can continue to sell it to us. They won't allow themselves to get cut out of the equation.

Wind turbines will occupy a place in the Smithsonian right beside buggy-whips by mid-century, or before.

Most large private power companies own and maintain (in most states) the grid. Others are coops and there atre a few public utilities. Whatever the nature of the beast, they put up the investment to build the grid and should have certain rights.

But the actual power plants are owned by a whole host of players. Anyone can play and if there were a cheaper way, every home in America would be a mini-plant because the companies have to buy your excess power (by law).

The most exciting developments (to me) are the mini nuclear reactors being developed. They vary in design but all are very portable and can be trucked to a remote location, eliminating the need for long transmission lines. Most are sealed units with a 30 year life. After thirty years, you dig up the spent reactor and install a replacement.

They can be sized to run anything from a single housing development or village to a larger sized town.

I believe it's simple economics. Oil is cheap compared to alternatives and there is a lot of it. Imagine if we drilled ANWR, developed the shale deposits in CO & WY, and developed the rumored deposits in KS, NE, ND & SD. Coal and nuclear are players as well. Both of these energy sources can be developed without Gov subsidies. All the rest are asking for a Gov handout. And the Dems seem ready and willing to hand it over. Since when did we get a new ammendment that gives Gov the power/right to intervene in the market in an attempt to social engineer me out of my pickup. I'll vote Republican but I wish I could vote Libertarian.

Living about an hour away from one of California's wind farms, Altamont pass, here's what I can tell you.

Wind is not cheap, the cost of maintenance is overwhelming, the windmills constantly break down and need repair.

There is an environmental impact! Studies have been done showing the adverse affect they have on native bird populations, this has become such an issue, that less than 30% of the whirly birds were running at last check. Imagine the effect on migratory fowl.

To my knowledge, I haven't heard of a study to study the effects of altering wind flow through the area, on the local ecosystems, and the weather.

John

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

From what I know of the attitude of landowners in the area northwest of Fort Worth and south of Wichita Falls, the majoirty of them are welcoming the wind generators with open arms.

My experience around Jacksboro is different.

A minority of relatively large land owners (predominately non-resident) wanted the project ,based upon revenue projections (that frankly, now look to be "pie in the sky").

The project was/is delayed due to transmission line /property rights battles.

Additionally, as the wind turbine noise level rose after the much delayed start-up of the "farms" the level of complaints also rose.

It appears the Lesser Prairie Chicken may have a role too play.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/ne...d_energy_growth.html

As well as research into "Wind Turbine Syndrome" ,not only in the US , but in Japan and Europe.

http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/

As to property values,in this area of Texas, the limited sales data on land with and near tubines appears to have a lower current price point( multi-factoral).

I am not considered by myself or my friends to be a tree-hugger.

This issue disturbs me on many levels, as a land owner, neighbor,tax-payer, hunter, pilot, admirer of nature's picturesque beauty and amateur Texas Historian.

It appears much like the proposed Trans-Texas corridor, much of this "deal" was done in the dark, and a fair amount of tax money was "granted" and may disappeared into thin air (or turbine air).

Don't forget the known oil fields off the coast of California and Florida that are closed for political reasons.

There is no oil shortage. There is no landfill shortage either. Both problems are purely political and are cases of self-inflicted misery.

I always thought that wind generators produced dc only is this incorrect?

When someone shows me the technology that shows that wind or solar power will push a 250 ton jet down the runway and get into the air and fly at 600 mph -and also fuel a freight locomotive so that it can haul a ninety car freight train -then I will accept the arguments of the wind/solar fanatics. ( It's amusing to read "Peter's" posts from Jacksonville, Florida - where the liberals don't want any off shore drilling for oil -not even 50 miles offshore -where there are enormous untapped reserves. Oh, did I mention that just today there are published complaints by wind power companies that they are being held up in construction by people who are worried about the prairie grouse. (It seems that prairie grouse numbers are declining and the bird has problems mating and raising chicks where there are towering structures so a restriction of no wind towers within 5 miles of breeding grounds was imposed - and the wind power companies are complaining. I guess it's all a case of whose ox is being gored -but we really should have a revolution in this country against the environmental fanatics.

quote:

Originally posted by Bryan Chick:
I always thought that wind generators produced dc only is this incorrect?

They can produce either, just like autos had generators (DC) and later alternators (AC). AC is more efficient during transmission that DC.

Just an opinion here Gerrypeters375, but I think the deal is, that if electricity for cities and homes can be produced by wind, oil can be saved and used for airplanes and such.

The rest of what you and a lot of other folks are saying I agree with, in that there has to be some give and take and what is more important, a non-adaptative species that may be designed for extinction or keeping our country going?

I think the oil consuming states that do not allow drilling should have to pay a special tax to the oil producing states.

I thought about that for a while. I was worried about what other states might withold from Texas. Blondes? Got plenty. Kolbase? Nope. Cheap illegal labor? Not anymore; they're everywhere. Philly cheesteaks? Can't get a good one here now. New Black Panthers? We even got them. Yankees? Been living with transplants for decades. So, why not?

quote:

Originally posted by Bryan Chick:
I always thought that wind generators produced dc only is this incorrect?

Genrators only produce DC, alternators produce AC, technically the windmills use an Alternator. They run on high voltage AC as well.

John

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:

quote:

Originally posted by Bryan Chick:
I always thought that wind generators produced dc only is this incorrect?

They can produce either, just like autos had generators (DC) and later alternators (AC). AC is more efficient during transmission that DC.

DC is actually more efficient for transmission, the line loss on DC is much less than AC. AC is much cheaper to change voltage from high voltage to lower voltages via transformer.

John

quote:

AC is more efficient during transmission that DC.

D.C. is much more efficient, for long runs. D.C. is less expensive and has lower line loss. THere are quite a few DC lines. There is also an AC/DC tie in Nebraska that balances the cycle between west and east. I think it is near Sydney. Also, the biggest share of generation is at low voltages such as 13,800 and then stepped up to transmission voltage, such as 69kv, 230kv, or even 345kv. Some of the DC lines are 500kv.

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:

quote:

AC is more efficient during transmission that DC.

D.C. is much more efficient, for long runs. D.C. is less expensive and has lower line loss. THere are quite a few DC lines. There is also an AC/DC tie in Nebraska that balances the cycle between west and east. I think it is near Sydney. Also, the biggest share of generation is at low voltages such as 13,800 and then stepped up to transmission voltage, such as 69kv, 230kv, or even 345kv. Some of the DC lines are 500kv.

Easy way to tell is DC lines comes in twos, AC comes in threes. San Francisco still has DC in certain buildings, it is provided by rectifiers on the poles. Almost all western states power is distributed via AC now, not sure if they are looking into DC but I would think that with SRC drives, one could make AC current pretty easily from dc. There is one HVDC intertie from Washington State to LA.

But we digress, windmills bad, hunting good. Politicians bad, except for Sarah Palin, she's real good.

John

CO-gen and local production are great ideas but for one obstacle, human beings, they screw up everything and it's not just the NIMBY crowd.

quote:

But we digress, windmills bad, hunting good. Politicians bad, except for Sarah Palin, she's real good.

I like the way you think!

quote:

Originally posted by richj:
CO-gen and local production are great ideas but for one obstacle, human beings, they screw up everything and it's not just the NIMBY crowd.

Local production makes the most sense, but then again, politics has little to do with sense.

John

quote:

Originally posted by Big Bore Boar Hunter:

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:

quote:

Originally posted by Bryan Chick:
I always thought that wind generators produced dc only is this incorrect?

They can produce either, just like autos had generators (DC) and later alternators (AC). AC is more efficient during transmission that DC.

DC is actually more efficient for transmission, the line loss on DC is much less than AC. AC is much cheaper to change voltage from high voltage to lower voltages via transformer.

John

Thanks for the correction. I learn what I don't know every day here!

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
Well kudu having seen your signature line, I am not sure you are ready for facts but:
1. The gasoline engine is less efficient than 35%.
2. Even at 35%, wind is FREE! Understand?
3. There is absolutely a shortage of electricity in the USA due to INCREASED demand and older power plants having to be replaced. That is why there are plenty of applications for permits to build.
4. Yes, I agree that with wind turbines access would be restricted. How big a price is this to pay for less dependence on foreign oil?
Peter.

Turbines are a joke. If you think wind is going to do anything besides waste tax (my) dollars, you are dreaming.

Crazyhorseconsulting:

I will jump in line to support the idea of wind/solar energy even if just to produce electricity if the environmentalists will answer two questions - (1) -Exactly when will wind/solar energy produce what coal does today for us in the entire US? (2) What do we do about the Americans who mine coal and who will therefore have no jobs, if the wind/solar people are right? The coal mining industry and all the related services that depend on it constitute a really large part of our country's economy. (At the end of WW2, there were innumerable stories of -complete with pictures - of what the "world of tomorrow" was going to look like. One part of those prophecies I have always remembered -that we all would be travelling by airplane, in fact, each of us in our own private airplane. I'm still waiting - and, I suspect that the predictions of the wind/solar people are equally far off.

I don't have an answer to either of those questions, I just know land owners that are all for the deal.

Now, if you can tell me when it became a Cardinal Sin for land owners to make something ofrf of what their land produces I would reall y like to hear it.

If you can't STFU.

I can see where people that are concerned about the closure of Public Land for the instillation of wind turbines is an issue that needs to be addressed by everyone, I can not see where installingv wind turbines on Private Land is anyones concern but the folks who own the land.

Can you explain to me why it is???????

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
I don't have an answer to either of those questions, I just know land owners that are all for the deal.

Now, if you can tell me when it became a Cardinal Sin for land owners to make something ofrf of what their land produces I would reall y like to hear it.-----

There has been a longstanding legal concept that you may do as you wish with your land,until it damages mine either physically, by diminishing its value or by creating nuisance or hazard.

All the above conditions may be tested soon in the Texas courts.