Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 12/20/2008 6:19:00 PM PST by Dundee
I have read that Nancy Pelosi is one of the larger stockholders in Boone Pickens scheme to build wind farms.
Also, Al Gore and Henry Paulson are partners in GIM, [Generation Investment Management?] located in London which invest in companies buying carbon credits.....
No wonder the government is so interested in perpetuating the Global Warming and "save the environment" scares. Follow the money...
My 3.5 ton central air conditioner pulls 5 kilowatts even when the sun doesn't shine.
It's obvious. The front fell off.
Paulson's involved in that? So, that's why we have carbon credits as part of the mortgage bailout? These people are scum.
Looks like Ensign Penida is storing energy, Bones.
It's worse than that he's dead, Jim.
Dead? Are you sure bones?
Yes, Jim; he stored so much energy he overloaded his neural circuits, and shorted out.
Aye, Koptin, even I kin recognize a blown neuteral circuit. Bones is right; he's dead, Jim.
Assuming a 10% efficiency which is normal for these machines, one can calculate that the installed capital cost per megawatt is $ 40,625,000 whereas the capital cost for a typical 1000 megawatt nuclear plant is about 6,000 per megawatt and hence, the wind machines are approximately 6770.84 times more costly than a modern nuclear plant.
In other words, for 1000 megawatts of wind power, one could build 6770.84 1000 megawatt nuclear plants!
Can't fix stupid!
There was a post here on FR a few weeks ago that reported a survey of windfarms to rate them. One English windfarm was producing at 7% of rated capacity. 30% would be a very good number. When they tell you one windmill will power so many homes just multiply that by .3 to get the real number and expect periods of no power at all if the wind isn’t blowing unless the electric company maintains enough baseload power to cover.
The solar project is barely enough to power 18 of these. I wonder what it cost for the 30 kW of capacity?
Even if they delivered, it’s hard to see them as economically viable. Assume that power at the terminals of the generator is worth $0.07/kW hour, assume that they have an effective availability of 0.25, i.e., average output is 20 kW, 24/7/365. Further assume that they are completely maintenance free and have an infinite economic life, there are no insurance costs, the land on which they sit is free or otherwise economically unproductive. That works out to an economic value of $12,000 dollar per year for an investment of $325,000 or about 3.8% per year. Normally, you have to know Bernie Medoff to get returns like that.
Of course, this analysis is sensitive to assumptions, but in the event, it seems generous based on the reports. I’d bet in the real world that maintenance and other incidental costs would be greater than the economic value of the electricity delivered.
One standard Coal fired plant produces 10 Billion Kilowatt hours of electricity and will heat and light 700,000 homes in one year. A Wind Trbine will provide power for only 400 homes per year. (That is if it runs at 100% efficiency, but in reality, they barely run at 35% efficiency.)
That is equal to 1750 wind turbines (Operating at 100% efficiency.) that it will take equal one Coal plant. (Of course that is if each and every one are fully operational.) The 5 megawatt figure is the output of one turbine when it is running without interruption. Being that they are actually only 35% efficient, take only 35% of the 5 megawatt output for a realistic comparison.
Given the unrealistic amount of 100% efficiency to Wind Turbine power, Each turbine occupies 5 acres of land. Multiply that by 1750, and the total land use for Wind Turbines is 8,750 acres. The Coal Plant occupies around 30 acres. That's 291 times more land area that “Wind Power” must have to equal one Coal fired plant.
Now, think about it. How many Coal Fired or Nuclear plants are there in this country, to handle our needs? And think about replacing them with Wind Turbines. The outlook is beyond ridiculous.
Equivalent Solar Power takes about 100 times the land area as do Wind Turbines, which is even more ridiculous.
Reality is such a spoiler of ignorance.
Bump for discussion
Yes, that's what I think he's trying to say. Very few people know what electrical power is.
Maybe we could buy some of their non-moving turbines that have a bunch of energy stored already. We could bring them here and when they move, we could get that stored energy out. What maroons!
I think most grade school kids have a better understanding than these people do.
It’s a well know fact that Wind Turbines cannot store energy in any form. They require energy when they are not turning and actually take power away from the grid when they are “off line”. They are a complete joke.
LOL!!
It’s even worse than your analysis. The 5 megawatt rating you mention only applies to proposed offshore wind turbines. AFAIC the land based ones produce about 2.5 MW rated capacity. Have there been instances of 5 megawatt wind turbines on land that i’m not aware of?
The brake energy they use is a form of bound kinetic energy and an LED strobe requires very little energy. The stored energy statement is an ill formed thought.
The land of cloudless days
The land of an unclouded sky
They tell me of a home where no storm clouds rise
They tell me of an unclouded day
“BTW your post has the sense to me of one who is not fully on board with the tenets of FR.com.”
Not sure what you mean by that. Please explain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.