Wind Energy in Iowa...Your Thoughts

[jbhtexas]

Here's a good TED talk about our power options

Excellent video. There are number of definitions of "hoax" out there, but they all generally involve some aspect of perpetrating a falsehood as truth. That seems to be exactly what happened in Germany. Germany was duped into believing the "hoax" that nuclear power is bad, ultimately shutting down their nuclear facilities in favor of wind and solar, when they should have been expanding nuclear power.

And the same thing is happening here in the US. We've been duped into spending billions on wind and solar, when at least some (I would contend most) of that money would have been/would be much better spent investing in next-generation nuclear facilities. About a decade ago, I read a keynote address given at an engineering conference on this very topic. The conclusion was the same...the safest and most economic way to generate the amount of electricity that our society will require is by using nuclear power. Do the math. Wind and solar simply can't accomplish it.

So, is wind power a "hoax" in the sense that it doesn't work...well, no, wind turbines certainly do generate electricity. Is wind power (and solar power for that matter) a "hoax" in the sense that it is the best means for meeting our current and future electricity needs, and as such, is bleeding off precious energy investment dollars...absolutely!

I'll give you a hoax to chew on: AOC and her absolutely ludicrous "green initiative" suggesting that it is possible to have a carbon free energy footprint in the near future that doesn't involve nuclear power.

 

[BCClone]

So moving soil for millions of feet of tile lines is ok, but the second you put in a 100x100 foot pad of concrete, it's not?

I think he is talking about that large hole that gets dug. That is way different than the plow disturbing a foot wide slit in the ground that gets leveled generally the same day.

 

[crawfy54]

Looks to me like a very windy day. At high winds/rotational velocity, the tips of the blades start to flex backward. That GIF looks like blades bent backward far enough to come in contact with the tower. You see the one blade start to come apart right after it goes by the tower. Then you see a small "explosion" about 2/3 way up the tower, right where the blades cross it.

I think the threshold is typically something like 30mph winds, max. That's why on crazy windy days, the turbines aren't rotating. They put them in "wind vane mode" which means the blades are turned 90 degrees so they don't resist the wind and then the top of the tower is free-turning so it matches whatever direction the wind is coming from.

newer models can operate nearly 30 m/s. ~60mph

 

[CascadeClone]

 

[alarson]

Crowing about the subsidies that wind energy products is a waste of time. Let's ditch all subsidies for gas, oil, nuclear, etc. Then we can truly see how expensive energy actually is without government support.

In addition to the direct subsidies, any fair comparison between wind and traditional power sources also includes discussion of the externalities that fossil fuel production generally does not account for, including the health\lifespan effects and the effects that the emissions will have on climate change. These subsidies that we all have ended up bearing value in the trillions.

 

[fatkid1974]

How many natural resources are burned (coal, diesel fuel, etc) to make this renewable resource? 335 tons of steel, 4.7 tons of copper, 1,200 tons of concrete to make 1 wind turbine from the numbers I've seen. I'm skeptical about everything though and am far from an expert on the subject. What I do know is I've sat in a quiet timber hunting near a field with windmills and they were much louder than I ever expected. That's a minor inconvenience, just something I personally noticed.

 

[cyhiphopp]

I suggest you go back and read the existing posts, because there has been at least some substantive discussion. If you're actually looking for it. I'm skeptical. You don't start out asking if something is a "hoax" looking for a real discussion.

My bet is that it's a net positive, based on generating some energy in a renewable way as well as the investments into technology which will further our ability to head towards more renewable energy in the future. Does this mean we should stick with wind energy forever? Not necessarily. It doesn't have to be perfect to be good, and if it isn't perfect, that doesn't mean it's bad. EMBRACE NUANCE.

Exactly, and while it's not perfect, name me an energy source that is. It doesn't exist.

The current "alternative" being thrown out is to invest more in coal plants which is less perfect.

Dependence on fossil fuel succeeds mainly in making billionaires more rich.

Wind energy can be improved, and other non-fossil fuel energy also needs to continue to be developed.

 

[alarson]

And the same thing is happening here in the US. We've been duped into spending billions on wind and solar, when at least some (I would contend most) of that money would have been/would be much better spent investing in next-generation nuclear facilities. I read a keynote address given at an engineering conference on the very topic about a decade ago. The conclusion was the same...the safest and most economic way to generate the amount of electricity that our society will require is by using nuclear power. Do the math. Wind and solar simply can't accomplish it.

So, is wind power a "hoax" in the sense that it doesn't work...well, no, wind turbines certainly do generate electricity. Is wind power (and solar power for that matter) a "hoax" in the sense that it is the best means for meeting our current and future electricity needs, and as such, is bleeding off precious energy investment dollars...absolutely!

I'll give you a hoax to chew on: AOC and her absolutely ludicrous "green initiative" suggesting that it is possible to have a carbon free energy footprint in the near future that doesn't involve nuclear power.

Nuclear power is something that would have been a great idea to be building more of 20 years ago, but we're unlikely to be seeing any more of it anytime soon.

Nuclear is a massive capital investment, taking a decade+ to build and enough cost that for most companies it is putting a large amount (if not all) of their eggs in one basket, at a time where alternatives such as wind and solar, as well as energy storage technologies are getting cheaper and cheaper by the day (to the point it is highly likely battery storage for wind\solar will be more than viable by the time any nuclear project would complete). Very few investors are going to want to sink $10bil into a project that will take a decade or more to complete and by the time it gets up and running may not even be cost-competitive with the alternatives that exist when it is finished.

 

[madguy30]

Watching some of you call Wind Energy a hoax is why we have President Dumb ass.

Good, clean, coal.

That actually does have connections to poor health.

And the oceans and water all over aren't warmer either.

 

[NoCreativity]

I'll give you a hoax to chew on: AOC and her absolutely ludicrous "green initiative" suggesting that it is possible to have a carbon free energy footprint in the near future that doesn't involve nuclear power.

I love how people who think she is crazy also believe that wind turbines cause cancer and that you can't watch TV unless it's windy out. Funny stuff!

 

[crawfy54]

As for subsidies “keeping wind afloat”. Let’s not pretend coal isn’t massively subsidized.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo...17/10/6/16428458/us-energy-coal-oil-subsidies

 

[Entropy]

The energy density of batteries is so many orders of magnitude less than fossil fuels, it's not going to get us there ever. Batteries are never going to be a panacea. Sure batteries are useful but large scale storage is a pipe dream. If you have extra energy production capacity you're better off pumping water uphill and recovering what you can from gravity or spinning an enormous flywheel. Looking at factors like endensity of the fuel, pollution, baseload power needs, we already have most of that handled with nuclear power.

Where's the calculation on efficiency?
It's not just about the joules, but where the joules go from there. It's hard to knock electric motors when it comes to efficiency of function.

We are also in a mindset of potential single source production of energy (nuclear plant, coal/nat gas plant, etc) whereas a distributive model might be able to handle more of our electrical needs. I'm biased, as I have solar panels on my roof.

I think a mixed model is the future. I'm not holding out hope for more nuclear production, as it seems we are moving further away, rather than developing it. I saw that as well at Argonne. Their nuclear production area is more focused on making radioactive material for medicine rather than power.

 

[Bluffers]

Fusion. Give me my own mini-sun in my basement to power the neighborhood.

Well, actually something like that. Consider less than ten bucks for all the energy you will use in your entire ilife.

 

[BCClone]

So moving soil for millions of feet of tile lines is ok, but the second you put in a 100x100 foot pad of concrete, it's not?

Edit: Never mind the 16th of an inch of topsoil we erode every single year.

You may want to check some updated data. Tests and documentation, per NRCS and DNR tests and science, shows our farms are building topsoil.

 

[weR138]

And the same thing is happening here in the US. We've been duped into spending billions on wind and solar, when at least some (I would contend most) of that money would have been/would be much better spent investing in next-generation nuclear facilities. I read a keynote address given at an engineering conference on the very topic about a decade ago. The conclusion was the same...the safest and most economic way to generate the amount of electricity that our society will require is by using nuclear power. Do the math. Wind and solar simply can't accomplish it.

I'd like to hear the argument against this.

There's no reason not to try to perfect wind/solar but what we really need is more (and better) nuclear energy.

 

[ArgentCy]

newer models can operate nearly 30 m/s. ~60mph

Now that's cooking with gas.. so to speak.

 

[Tri4Cy]

As a supply chain guy, this is where my mind goes as well. Windmills, contrary to popular belief, aren't grown from tiny windmill seeds.

*pauses for collective gasps*

There is a ton of energy being used to produce, ship, and construct these bad boys. They are expensive, the money they have to pay land owners is incredibly high, and the people that erect and maintain them are paid very well. As the link below states, each one is $3-4 million to build and install. Not sure on maintenance costs.

So, the question, to me, is how long does it take for each of these windmills to produce $3-4 million worth of energy? And for the record, I'm neither for or against them. However, if the ROI isn't anywhere near their cost, is it worth continuing down the same path or should those dollars and resources be better spent looking into something else?

http://www.windustry.org/how_much_do_wind_turbines_cost

I get this part of the equation too...but it's kind of a chicken or the egg issue. If you can't use standard energy sources to research or improve other techniques for generating energy then we'll never be able to advance. I would have to believe the "dream" is that we of course have to use traditional sources today to build the turbines. Then as these turbines come online then we are using less and less traditional sources as we slowly convert. Now I'm not sold that wind is THE answer but we can't decide that we won't try new techniques because we have to use oil for example today to get there.

 

[kingcy]

Which wind farm do you live near, if you don't mind me asking. Every construction site I have been on has 3rd party environmental staff on site to mitigate as much damage as possible.

Stuart-Menlo one. They did some to try to help with the erosion but not nearly enough.

 

[Tri4Cy]

Not a hoax? Don't produce energy? I see you haven't spent much time around Trumpers. All he had to do was say one negative thing about wind energy and all his idiot followers jump on the bandwagon. They probably believe that we are actually using electricity to turn the blades as opposed to producing energy.

Wait...where does wind come from then!?

 

[Sigmapolis]

We are almost 100 posts into this thread and every one of them miss the most important thing about wind project economics and wind's role in utility planning --

Wind is most active at night and in the winter.

Demand at night is slack, while most demand is during the day (and increasingly in the evening when people come home, turn on electronics, and turn on the oven).

Demand is also highest in the summer. Wind is almost exactly counter-cyclical to demand.



That is on top of the generally intermittent nature of renewable power, requiring your typical backup from a dispatchable thermal, nuclear, or hydroelectric unit.

Solar at least has the good sense to be most active when demand is at its highest during the day and in the summer, though it misses that evening spike most of the time.

Wind is just not that "useful" and, as you will see below, it is badly placed relative to demand.

Wind might be very useful in some hypothetical future where people are charging electric vehicles overnight, where mass, utility-scale storage (either chemical, mechanical, or just pumped hydro) is available and needs be "charged" overnight before it is needed the next day. These would "smooth" load on the system out between the hours of the day and make the night owl wind plants more useful than they are right now to charge stuff up rather cheaply.

Wind is always going to have a geography problem, though.

There is just not a lot of population or demand in that "wind alley" from the Texas Panhandle up through the Dakotas. Some high demand nexuses -- data centers, particular types of rather energy-intensive manufacturing plants, etc. -- are moving there, but those are not that much compared to Chicago or New York. Transmitting power from western Nebraska to a load center in Atlanta is not technically feasible. It is going to stay a niche product.

There are some excellent offshore resources, but those are heinously expensive compared to the land-based variety. And if a small population of Iowans does not like looking at them (and I have no idea why, not like cornfields look like the natural tall grass prairie that came before them, just another human modification to the land for economic purposes) in what are mostly deserted rural areas, just imagine what tens of millions of people on the East Coast and West Coast think about it near beaches and over the ocean. They take some exception.

You have the same problems with the Great Lakes, which are really just inland seas.