WINDMILLS II

osprey, I think it's usually folks that either work for the coal companies, or have friends and family that work for them, mining, driving coal trucks, whatever. simple econimics and a bit of local pride. they fear those damn "greenies" are going to put them out of work. I don't think they understand that THE COAL WILL RUN OUT BEFORE THE WIND!! it won't happen in any of our lifetimes, but it will happen.
just think, in a million years, whatever lives on this planet will be able to dig us up and use US for fuel!!
BIG debates go on in WV over this topic, between mountain top removal or putting up windmills.
I think as technology moves forward, we will become more energy efficient and alternative forms of energy will be better developed and will be able to meet our needs.
 
I was grouse hunting a spot with some windmills the other day and a guy driving a truck with replacement blades on it stopped to say hi to my dogs. I asked him what happened to the blades that they needed replacing, and he said that the "locals" all over the mountains are using them for target practice. At this point his face got so red I thought he was going to pop. No doubt he was embarrassed.

I thought to myself that this is the quintessential redneck activity: it combines guns and drinking and its goal is environmentally destructive.
 
Had they not put these in former strip mines and fields , i mean if they were clearing forest to do it then i could see the protest , and i wouldn't like it myself although i can see where it could be done safely , taking the right precautions , minimal clearing of trees , carefull of silt run off etc. Do any of you know if they are clearing forest anywhere to install these?
 
In the Wyoming Valley, there are about 8-10 very large turbines bordering a game lands. They cut up the forest and put in maintenance roads-doesn't look too pretty on the satellite, and mud pouring off the mountain into the streams is substantial.

When you are in the game lands you can hear them from about a half a mile away. They are very annoying and kill the peace of the forest. If they miraculously produced much more energy, I'd be all for them, but at their current state, it's just another half measure. Maybe if we installed them all along the eastern seaboard it would make a serious dent.

There is no way, in my opinion, that all we have at this point is current nuclear, coal, and gas as our options. Start digging for answers.
 
Brownout.........i would think that instead of tearing up forested land to install these , putting them up in water makes sense like putting them on strip mines and fields , in lakes , rivers and like you say in the ocean makes sense , plenty of wind along the seaboard too.
 
Lakes and large reservoirs in Pa do produce some substantial winds. However, I'm not too sure how consistent they are. The Great Lakes is probably a whole nother ball game, and I would wager that they are probably modeling out the wind there.
 
What may cost more to start up to be efficient may be what keeps us warm tomorrow. I'm for windmills not how they are subsidized. What I don't like is that the government can tell me what contractors I can use to get a tax break for spending my own money to build something energy efficient. So much for saving anything. They will find a way to tax me for the saving I manage to squeeze out of that as well.

Anyone put money away for your kids college education when they did the lock in the price of college now program. Taxing that too. Gosh I sound like LJ.

LJ no offense.
 
YoughRiverGuide...........I'm by no means one of the "Politically correct" crowd but i do think it's a little intolerant to classify all "Rednecks" as alchoholic , gun toting , environmentaly destructive people , there are those of us who take pride in our "Redneckedness" i guess the determination lies in the eyes of the beholder , all i can ask is that you take a little closer look before you slap a label on anyone or group of people , there are groups of folks who many may classify as rednecks that are huge advocates of fly fishing and we would certainly be wrong to alienate them.
 
I'm not getting involved with this verbally....... But
http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=PA31F&re=1&ee=1

http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/

http://www.windenergysolutions.nl/

I've done the research and the math. its clean and efficent. and average household uses 400 kw/hr a month. They have small residental turbines that produce 80-500 Kw/hrs. Your house can sustain its self, but ordances stop it on residents. Right now the only way is if you are zoned for agriculture.
When i spoke with PPL on avg. you pay.199 cents a kw/hr.
Can't Ocean waves and tides turn something. Can't the heat lost in your chimney turn somethng. All you need is something to spin to create electricty. what about water flowing threw pipes ? This has been stewing in my brain for 2 years now. there a lot more. but i have too keep somethings to myself.
 
By the way the power produced by the 12 you see heaed south on 309 that energy goes to florida...!!!!!!!??!!!!?????
 
yea-who: Average household uses roughly double that figure you gave. You can't sustain a house on a single turbine, but you can certainly take a big bite out of your bill, and it can save you money in the long run.

Wind and solar make a lot of sense for a home. In the grand scheme, though, the home is not where the most energy is used. Industry and business use a boatload.

Wave Energy: Yes it exists. It's expensive to build plants, and the output is highly variable depending on location. But there's lots of room for expansion. Probably not going to touch the total demand curve but you will see it on a commercial scale like the other renewables.

Tides: Highly situational, but in some cases a great source of power. Need an inlet with fairly high surrounding elevation. You build a dam covering the inlet. The dam is opened when the tide comes in, and then closed at high tide, trapping water in a bay. Then you run the dam like a hydro plant on the outgoing tide. Only a few places worldwide where its feasible. In most places the bay would just break through another area and make a new inlet, sidestepping your dam. Plus the tides have to be severe in that location, the bay needs to be large to hold lots of water, and it can only have one inlet. China made a real big one, and it produces a ton of energy.

There are also tidal stream systems. Basically a turbine in the middle of the water. They can be used in many more places, and the power output is more predictable than wind. Infrastructure a lot cheaper than a huge dam. But the total energy output isn't much.

Heat from chimney: A lot of homes use chimney heat to partially preheat the water going into the hot water tank. Heat capture systems for industrial furnaces are being increasingly used.

Water through pipes: Well, yeah, but that water is typically pumped. Using it for energy means the pump has to work harder. As per the 2nd law of thermodynamics, you'd have to use more energy to increase the power of the pump than you would get out of the moving water. If the water is not pumped, say, gravity fed, well thats a different story, and we use it in very large amounts, its called hydroelectricity and is far and away the most used renewable power source.
 
pcray.........good post and good info , can tell you've put alot of thought into this , makes me think that maybe the approach is wrong , maybe the focus should have been to start from the bottom and work our way up , start with individual residence and try to become energy self sufficient and work our way up to large structures and eventually to industry.......does this make sense?
 
Pinnacle will generate as much as 55 million watts of electricity, enough to service 14,000 homes. (with it new wind farm)

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/business/s_661857.html
 
Osprey,

I don't think you work bottom up or top down, you do everything you can, where and when you can. A lot of it is retrofit of existing equipment. Larger facilities simply have more capital to invest in larger projects, and they do it to lower energy costs. In the "quotes" thread, someone said environmentalism meant making it profitable to be clean, and this is a perfect example. For home use, well its available, but its hard to put policy into place. The best you can do is make it cheaper and advertise. Plus, there are other options other than energy generating devices which are perhaps more efficient and realistic for more people, such as geo-thermal heat pumps.

Tom, thats great (and I mean it, I'm pro-wind), but a few things to realize.

1. The article says it will generate "as much as" 55 MW of electricity, enough to power 14,000 homes. It's unclear to me whether thats an average or peak-rate. Most wind farms generate well under peak rate most of the time. It might be an average, the article just doesn't explain it well.

2. # of homes is a very poor measuring stick as it implies homes are the major energy user in America. In PA energy use is split roughly 1/3 commercial, 1/3 industrial, and 1/3 residential. Of course this doesn't include transportation, which puts them all to shame. PA's electricity use is about 150,000,000 Mw-hrs. If this farm produces an average of 55 MW (55,000,000 watts) for 365 days a year and it all goes to PA, this means it will produce about 0.3% of PA's energy needs. That is a very large windfarm and it is impressive. This is about 1/6 the output of the average coal plant.
 
I thought it said much if it was going to the University of MD...

US Wind Force LLC is prepared to move forward with its long-planned, $131 million Pinnacle Wind Farm at NewPage as soon as a purchase agreement is signed with the University of Maryland, which will use the generated electricity.

You sure you read it?
 
Sorry, I was adjusting, my calculations were off. It is actually fairly impressive.

Yeah, I read it, and understand its not going to PA. I'm just trying to put numbers into perspective. I think people tend to lose the concept that a large number can still be a tiny fraction of the total.
 
pcray1231 wrote:


Yeah, I read it,
Click to expand...

dude I was jest messin' with you with that line...


But I thought the number seemed high compared to other numbers you had mentioned in the past. I only know what I read and what you tell me.

But I know this. The more you use a technology, the better it gets. Where would we be with automobile or the airplane if we just stopped trying 100 years ago because it didn't fit into someone's political agenda or because the first few models didn't live up to expectations.
 
The only number I had wrong was the .003%. I called it a percent and it was really a fraction, so thats 0.3%. Only off by a power of 100. 🙂

I wish these articles would use kW-hrs or MW-hrs instead of just watts. A watt is such a small unit, and they use it to make it sound more impressive. A "home" as I mentioned, is fairly meaningless. Most of us read that and say, well, thats a decent sized town it's powering. In reality, its a third of that, as we use electricity at work too. Too much sensationalism.

Like I said, thats an impressive wind plant if the average output is 55 MW, as my calculations assumed. If thats the peak, then the average is maybe 20% of that. That "as much as" phrase bugs me.
 
You have remember who actually writes them in the end before you begin to analyze...You would be over qualified as a writer but a good interview.
 
Yes, but these are the articles that drive public opinion. And that public opinion turns into policy.

Meaning that if the public is in the dark about the realities of the matter, then there isn't much hope for us to make good policy decisions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages
Wayward Trading”/> </center> </div> </div> </div> <div class=


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top