Alternative & Renewable Energy Blog

I cant believe that T. B. Pickens really actually would put his own money into wind power regardless of the rhetoric. I think the only possibility for significant quantities of green energy will occur when engineers and scientists are given an energy program and no cost constraints to develop same (like the challenge of space and NASA); no company scientist or entrepenuer will do it. Beyond that, solar power and wind power are not highly enough concentrated sources of energy and are not controllable as nuclear or fossil fuels are. Still think gepthermal is our best bet, but it is expensive because we havent developed the materials of construction well enough.

The result of the manner which the Texas grid is configured.

His plan was flawed from the start.

He wanted to make a wind farm to produce electricity for the grid and then force or push people into converting their cars to natural gas for which there are very few outlets and for which the payback period will never come in the lifetime of a used car.

That was all bad enough but with the coming of electric cars it made more sense to hook the wind turbines up to the grid for extra recharging power and promote his natural gas to get rid of CO2 emitting coal fired power stations.

OK, natural gas is also an emitter of CO2 but it's a lot less than coal and that would have got the green lobby and the car owning lobby on his side whereas his current plan invited both camps to go against him.

I agree and TBP had a good idea only most people rely on government to make choices for them (ODD).

True NG resource points were not and are not well distributed throughout the country but NG is found most everywhere and establishing a fueling point is simple mechanics.

I'm of the opinion converting existing vehicles to use NG fuel is cost effective compared to purchasing a replacement vehicle to use electricity. Even the clunkers could be considered of greater efficiency and the older the vehicle the greater the potential benefit. Allowing consumers to loosen the belt sooner and return to consuming and turning the economy around.

A guess it makes too much sense...

Explain something to me friends. Coal seems to be considered by the environmentalists to be the scourge of the planet. Since the 1950s, Sasol has been producing synthetic gasoline from coal via the Lurgi gasifier and Fischer-Tropsch route using the reaction (generalized):

(2n+1)H₂ + nCO → C_nH_(2n+2) + nH₂O

For the simplest case n=1, methane is produced; however, it is considered an undesireable byproduct as it is desired to produce higher chain-length alkanes. As we have abundant coal reserves in the USA and worldwide, why would we not desire to produce natural gas by this route to power our automobiles and industries, especially as this is likely the easiest hydrocarbon to produce?

What's the down side of the equation?

What is the total package cost comparison, cost of fuel, electricity and labor to get the coal transported and prepared for processing, plus cost of the process for Methane/NG and synthetic gasoline?

vs.

Using the existing NG infrastructure and creating NG fueling resource centers?

well for one reason, the coal industry completely rapes the enviroment to extract that "easily produced" fuel. the damage done by these coal companies is worse than the current polution levels. At least when the pollution goes in the air it is dilluted across distance. but when a coal company strips a mountain to get at the coal seam the devistaion is like a war zone for a 25 mile radius. in thoose areas, the water is poisoned, the air is poisoned, and the ground is poisoned. all the local wildlife is displaced or killed. Forests that have stood for thousands of years are bull dozed and burned. Moutains are flattened and valleys are filled in. All for that easily produced fuel.

Sorry, I've got to respond to your hyperbole. I grew up around many retired strip mines. (East central IL) These provided great fishing, woodland areas, and waterfront property years later, in an area commonly known as the "corn desert". This was my little piece of the earth for 40 years, and the water, flora, fauna, and fishes were just fine. While the mining activity does change the landscape, nature has a way of taking it back and producing something very usable and beautiful. Oh, by the way, the mining took place 50 years before the formation of the EPA, so I think my example would be one where only the worst practices (assuming we use best practices today) were used during the mining process. And nature still won out in the end. I won't say it's like that everywhere, but my piece of reality resembles not one iota of what you describe.

forgive me if I am wrong but isn't Illinios, flatland? Wouldn't those be salt mines and not coal?

I grew up in southern West Virginia and what the coal industry does in a mountainous area, to get coal, is they level the mountains. In doing that they fill in the valleys. There are no lakes left as they require low valleys to fill with water.

There is one lake in the area I know of that was a popular swimming/fishing area untill the mine moved into its head waters. Now the lake water is black from coal dust. The fish have all but dissapeared. and there are "no swimming" signs everywhere because of the pollution.

This is the map of the area. all these white scars are mines. The damage is so bad it can be seen from space. Each of these mines is between 25 and 200 miles wide. I can believe that nature will eventuall reclaim the areas, but that cant happen untill we stop destroying it. And that wont happen untill there isnt any more coal left. At the rate they are going they can level the entire state in about a hundred years. Is it worth it?

Illinois: extremely flat. They are indeed coal mines: strip mines, specifically. To understand the rest of my perspective, refer to Genesis 1:26. The people that did the mining then probably could not appreciate the unintended consequence of their actions in my case. In any event, they were filling a need (energy) that could not be met by other means at the time, based on economics. The same is true today. The reality is, until economic incentive is provided to get away from coal, it probably won't happen, because in the end, even the most dedicated environmentalist still likes to have electricity, at a reasonable price. The exceptions are the guys that build their own windmills, and more power to them! I believe we should be good stewards of the earth. When I can have renewable energy at a similar price to the next best option, then sign me up. But given my other responsibilities, I refuse to personally fund the R&D of science that is nowhere near ready for prime time.

I agree. The problem really isn't the creation of the power. The problem is the cost of that creation. If money were no object then every one would convert to renewable energy by the end of the month. We could stop using coal/oil/NG imediatly if not for the money. So what is the real solution? Easy. Get rid of the money.

Yeah the fish are laden with mercury marvelous

He is right to blame tranmission constraints, and an inadequate Grid from all my study here and anywhere else.

The fail point is the aristocratic oligarchy that will beat down through bureaucracy all rebels rich or poor.

The national grid dilemma is apparently varying greatly from place to place. My home state doesn't seem to say much about grid improvements but just by looking around on in state travels I have never seen so much new and large lines and older lines being installed and upgraded in my life.

Wind generator component transport trucks with tower sections and blades are daily occurrence. And so are larger transmission line boom trucks and semi loads of power line cable.

apparently regardless of what the rest of the nay sayers think somebody here is tossing some big money at improvements in both generation and transmission capacities! And its not for us locals to use. We have one hydroelectric station (Garrison Dam) and it produces all of the average power our state population needs.

All of the other coal and wind power we have is just profitable excess and it goes on the lines and out of state.

Your report implies work is being done as has been identified as proper.

In our world it appears that Facts, and Logic are not allowed to be used in any argument. For example, a quick scan of world wind maps will reveal that over 80% of the land mass has Class 2 wind (9.5 MPH). Only 6% of the land mass has enough wind to power the wind turbines widely available today (20+mph). These areas are located far from the loads. This requires grid extensions which cost near 1 Million Dollars per mile, making wind power very expensive even if the turbines were free.

Only One company offers a Class 2 Wind Turbine that is usable in these low wind speeds, P.S., they also work well in high wind (100+mph) .

They cannot be used as the Government won't allow them to be placed near the loads to eliminate the cost of wires. These turbines are cost effective in low wind speed areas, without subsidies or grants. A great capital investment. That makes them a threat to Government control of everything, not acceptable yes? Try to get a permit at your place and you will see.

These turbines are available now and have a 20 year history of dependable service.

Capitalism the only way to have sustainable growth.

Your figures are correct for wind speed at ground level not at 40' - 60' - 120' height where interaction of the turbine blade occurs

As I suggested to Mr. Pickens in a recent blog on his website, if the problem is transmission lines not being available, start a company to sell stock in transmission line developement. If the windmills are there to provide the energy, it seems reasonable to expect said company to always make money in transporting the energy to the large cities where it will be used. Even in this current economic downturn, it seems like a sure bet.

The cost of increasing the national grid capacity is high but wind based generation is no the only reason its being done. Its needed because more and more people depend on it regardless of where the power is generated. A new 1 GW power station is going to require just as much system upgrades to handle its power output and distribution as well.

Alternative energy power generation systems have an advantage though. 1 GW of wind, solar, or other renewable energy sources are not centrally located to one specific point. They are spread out and in many cases their actual power output is realistically doing more as localized system efficiency gains methods rather than a long haul transfer of actual power.

1 MW locally produced and consumed is 1 MW that did not need to be transfered to or from another place and thusly does not require an additional 1 MW of added line capacity.

Unfortunately many locations that do provide the best power production are not always near a place of large power consumption. But as the national grid system is upgraded the overall capacity and issues of what comes from where becomes some what less important. If the lines are already near the location anyway the actual cost of tying in is not nearly as great as assuming that the lines had to be placed from the new source all the way to the point of usage.

Do you figure the cost of your new driveway as what it cost to build it from your garage to the nearest road? Or do you figure your driveway cost as what it took to build the road and the infrastructure that gets you all the way top your favorite store? Your taxes and what not help pay for the infrastructure you use but that does not mean you paid for the whole thing.

Too many misrepresent the numbers as the new wind ans solar farms cost as a total infrastructure outlay even though most only need to concern themselves with getting to the nearest main line system which is much much cheaper and far more realistic.

Renewable energy is extremely complicated to execute on a large scale because of economic reasons. I have several people in my family (including my spouse) that are very environmentally concerned and have a strong belief that we already have the technology to solve all our energy problems. While it's true that we have the technology, there is absolutely no economic incentive to change. The usual arguments I hear are "wind is FREE", "the sun is FREE". This is completely incorrect. While it's true that the wind and the sun are "free" resources (we still pay for coal, oil, and natural gas as a variable cost based on usage), who's going to pay for the infrastructure to harness the sun or the wind (or geothermal, or tidal, etc.)? Infrastructure is extremely expensive and someone has to foot the bill. Without an economic incentive, it's going to be very difficult to attract the necessary capital. Compared with traditional energy sources, renewables are very expensive when including infrastructure. The other option is getting the government to pay for it through tax breaks, subsidies, direct investment through public works; in other words, you and me the taxpayer.

The other issue is that of energy "density". In order to replace a single coal-fired power plant, many windmills or solar panels are needed taking up much more real estate. There are also issues with NIMBY (not in my backyard). No one wants these things near their homes. It's much easier to hide a single power plant.

I don't think there's anyone that condones the use of non-renewable resources as the only forms of energy. I think the world would be a much better place if we didn't burn dirty coal or have to rely on unfriendly governments for our oil. One thing is clear...The problem is much more challenging when we start looking at the details.