Worlds Largest Windfarm?

YeeHaw!

I imagine that it will be marketed in Texas.

This should make the oil wells jealous, and might make them produce more oil.

Is this really a good idea? why not? The capital cost will be offset by savings over the long run.

The earth will not stop spinning or even wobble because of the drag.

Migrating birds may have a problem.

Hopefully the developer will take everything in consideration.

I went to school in Lubbock. The ranchers out there on the caprock had cattle, cotton and oil rigs. Now they can add windmills.

I'm no expert, but I doubt that there are a lot of migratory birds flying that low to the ground in West Texas, since there are scarcely any trees or water.

bhankiii, You are right-but if just 1 bird is killed because of the windmills, we will NEVER hear the end of it! James

What about the tired ones? And being Texas they will be higher than anywhere else.

Your right about water and trees, but never the less the Texas plains are the winter home to thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Canadian Geese, Sandhill Crane, and the last half dozen Whooping Crane. Not to mention a migratory corridor for bats. (I'll have to find a reference but I seem to remember that a wind farm in the Dakotas killed a few hundred bats a night during a migration.)

I'm not arguing against wind generation, I'm just looking for a discussion. Its true that every kWh of wind generated power displaces a kWh of fossil fuel power. In open markets, the subsidized market price for wind power is often less than that the cost of power generated from natural gas. These are a few GOOD things about wind power. On the other hand, a million dollars a MW is a lot of capital for non-dispatchable power. The wind blows in the spring and fall, overnight and early mornings, but the dog days of summer are dead calm. Texas and much of the rest of the country is tight on power, there is a great need for dispatchable base load capacity. No only is there a need to build new base load generation, much of the existing generation is aging, 25+ years old and needs to be replaced. New plants are more efficient, more kWh per Btu, which means new generation can meet the power requirements with less fuel and less emissions. New plants are also required to meet tighter emissions standards, which is another feather in the hat for building new plants.

Speaking of bats - on one late night drive to Lubbock I saw hundreds of tarantulas crossing the highway. On their own migration, i guess.

I'm trying to figure out if your really interested in legitimate discussion or pulling "bat crap" out of the air. I haven't read the article, but if the guy is going to foot the bill and not dump it on taxpayers, who cares who gets the power. Then the comment about the bats, are you serious? I can't get one to hit my windshield when driving at 70mph and windmills turning low RPMs are going to kill a few hundred a night. I guess during migration, they must forget to turn their "built-in radar" on. It took awhile, but you actually brought up a legitimate issue: Is there enough available wind to make the farms practical or will it be an massive waste of money? If one was to look at a wind map, you might think it to be a waste of money, but then again without knowing localized areas in Texas, it could be practical if focused in specific wind generating areas such as passes. The ones near Palm Springs have worked very well, but then again they're located in the San Gorgonio pass where it is a natural wind generator. Ask the bird scenarios on some other forum where PETA fanatics hang out. That nonsense gets passed by people visualizing small turbines turning fast speeds, when in reality these massive wind turbines turn at very low speeds where birds can easily fly right by them.

This "bat crap" as you so elegantly put it true. I know in southern Alberta they have had several bats killed from the windmills and have started studies to figure out why they are attracted to them and hopefully solve the issue.

It should be our responsibility to not harm or at least to limit the danger to animals and/or nature in our engineering projects.

Assuming there isn't any danger to the wildlife or environment does it matter where the power goes? It adds to the "global supply" and everyone should benefit in the end from increase supply.

invective much?

I guess not all opinions are as worthy as yours.

I can understand the concerns for the various birds you mentioned.

But bats, are they an endangered species?

Here in the California, San Joaquin Valley, we concider them to be pests the same as mice and rats. At the large distribution center, where I work, large amounts of money and time is spent trying to keep them out of the facility, as for the ones that make it inside there is an attempt to capture them humanely and return them to the outside when possible. We treat the mice the same with humane capture but they are somehow eliminated, don't know how -- the pest folks do it.

If you don't want your bats, send them down here to Houston - they're mosquito eating machines.

Very good point, yes, they are valuable in some ways. They also provide super fertilizer for gardeners.

But bats, are they an endangered species?

Depends on sub-species. All bats have legal protection in the UK, as do swans, incidentally.

They could also add solar, and biomass, but I guess the cattle use the biomass.

Ron

Yep, in fact back in the 70's when I was in school there, the EE dept built a solar power station for the tiny town of Crosbyton, with help from E-Systems. It used a circular dish to superheat water to make steam for a turbine. To run at night heat was stored in underground tanks of cotton seed oil.

Remember this?

The conventional wisdom around here is that the payback time for a wind generator runs about 20 to 30 years, (not counting the price of the land). Most wind generators will fail well before that time. (your mileage may differ)

A lot can happen in that 20 years. The price of electricity can rise, thereby shortening the payback time. The technology of wind mills and wind generators can increase the time that the thing can stay out there in the weather, that is, increase the time it can keep on producing before it needs replaceing. Technology can advance to where the amount of electricity the thing produces will increase, therefore reducing its payback time.

All the above WILL take place, and much already HAS been done. So, an investment in the land, permits, build teams, new technology, training facilities, on-site factory and other buildings is not really a gamble. The land alone! I sort of envy a man who is willing to take on such a headache.

One of the articles linked tells us that the power will be going to ERCOT. The hazard to migratory birds (largely waterfowl) is minimal, as they tend to fly at altitudes much higher than man currently builds. Geese are more likely to be hit by jet planes than windmills for the most part. The instances where there have been major losses of birdlife have been in mountain passes, with less room to maneuver, and concern has primarily centered on raptors. BTW, the crane populations are such that the sandhill crane is close to becoming a game bird again, and the whooping crane population is now creeping up into the thousands.

I am sure we can solve the minor bird and bat issues. What we can't resolve is the pollution in the air from coal and gas fired plants.

I would rather zero emissions killing a few birds than heavy emissions killing millions of people.

It is a matter of saving our planet.

If the oil companies don't invest in future technology, they will become the sand buried oil companies of Mad Max and we will all speak of Ridley Walker as a famous explorer and future president of the world.

I am sure we can solve the minor bird and bat issues. What we can't resolve is the pollution in the air from coal and gas fired plants.

We can't resolve the polution issues coal, gas, and oil seems correct -- it seem strange that no one has address the issue of protecting the ants, worms, grub worms etc. when mining for these products. After all these are necessary and productive life in their own right. It seems that only some life is considered valuable -- to some ie birds, bears, fish, bats, most mammals, and on and on.

A major Dam project (the Auburn Dam for flood control for the Sacramento Valley) has been on hold in CA for many years to save a small snail population. Yet the humans below where this dam would be are always in danger due to a failing levee system and old dams that really can't handle serious flood capacity. What about these people are they valuable life too? At least as valuable as a small snail population that will probably migrate above the water level of the dam anyway.

What is the answer stop all progress until we can save everything.

All of the above is Just a thought -- I certainly don't have the answers. Does any one here have them?

It's not necessary to have all the answers (if you want all the answers, ask a teenager).

What's is incumbent upon those of us who would call ourselves engineers is to make reasonable efforts to protect the environment from the things that we create.

For instance, it may be that something as simple as adding food and water resources north or south of your windfarm is all it takes to protect east-west flying birds. Something along those lines would be a win-win situation, which is what good engineering is all about. When eagles were being vaporized by trying to perch on high power towers, they just added wooden perches above the wires - problem solved.

Life is one of the few things that we can't create - we should try to be protective of it, not scornful.

Very good points. No scorn intended, I'm sorry that you saw scorn in my statements.

I didn't ask if someone had all the answers -- just answers related to those issues that I addressed -- That's why I left the teenagers out of the folks I asked.

And, yes, it would be ideal to be able to have all the answers, but to re-state the obvious, that isn't possible or maybe not even necessary.

No, the scorn was in earlier comments.

Scorn was not intended in any remarks I made -- only that there are inequities and many times undue concern for minor things (i.e. snails, bats) compared to the quality and value of human life.

Not sure what you are talking about but all points made here are pretty much opinion and personal feelings, even yours -- there are none more or less important than another. Personal criticism and your judgement of my comments as scornful are not necessary.

Here is scornful -- Let's build more major corporate behemoths in the name of ecology such as the "SMOG INDUSTRY in California. A major success for the money folks and for the state revenues. Smog laws are good but here they are stretched to an extreme. Low income folks cannot even afford to obey the laws in many cases. Oh but of course more revenue for the state in the form of fines -- all in the name of green -- sorry but GREEN is the dollar in most cases -- it either hurts someone not making ends meet or lines someone Else's pocket. At the onset in the sixties it was all good and a start to something productive. then for profit industries were formed and it all went to h*ll.

All of the Cynical comments are my own and I are my opinion only -- -- as are most things stated it can be supported as either true or false depending on who you are talking to and various sources of information.

Have a great day

Wind is forever free of cost as well as free of hazards. All methods to generate electricity require costs of making the equipment and maintaining them, but I do not see how any other form of electricity generation can come close to that of wind power. I'd put up a tower in my backyard if I was allowed by the town. My hat is off to T. Boone !

Bill Goss, CQA, CSAM

President - Quality Systems Consulting

qualitysystem@comcast.net

www.qualitysystems2007.com

www.softwareassetcontrol

978-766-4164