The good news: US doles out $500,000,000 for "green" energy projects.

[markw]

The bad news : It's to foreign companies.

"The U.S. government handed out $502 million in grants for a dozen wind- and solar-power projects from Maine to South Texas, the first round in a new subsidy program designed to spur renewable-energy investment.
...
But while the wind farms and solar installations are in the U.S., the profits from these projects are flowing mainly to European companies and developers owned by private-equity investors."

From WSJ >> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125182848772276871.html

 

[Tomorrow]

The bad news : It's to foreign companies.

"The U.S. government handed out $502 million in grants for a dozen wind- and solar-power projects from Maine to South Texas, the first round in a new subsidy program designed to spur renewable-energy investment.
...
But while the wind farms and solar installations are in the U.S., the profits from these projects are flowing mainly to European companies and developers owned by private-equity investors."

From WSJ >> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125182848772276871.html

Ah, this is our self-avowed communist buddy Van Jones at play. Just the kind of guy I'd pick for Green Energy Czar.

 

[Rickster71]

Unfortunately, Wind Power isn't the panacea that they claim it is.
Because of the way the power grid works, it's a juggling act, constantly trying to match supply with demand to avoid dips and surges, the variable production of wind turbines is treated as part of the demand side of the equation.

What happens is, a benchmark level of power is provided from large plants, and other plants are kept burning to be able to provide the maximum likely power (peak load) needed as it varies through the day. As demand drops, those plants are diverted 'off line' from power generation, and as demand rises they are brought back on to resume generating the needed power. These plants burn fuel whether or not they are producing electricity.

In other words, these peak load plants must continue burning fuel when demand falls or wind production rises, because either trend may reverse at any time. Because the wins turbines are out of the control of the grid's dispatchers, (along with user demand), the wind turbines' only effect is to bring the spinning standby plants in and out of production. But, don't forget, the plants continue to burn their fuel. And the additional fluctuations of wind power add to the cost and inefficiency of that burning.

A further irony is that because an increase in wind power capacity is seen on the grid as an increase in demand fluctuation, it requires dedication of other grid capacity to cover it. Rather than reduce, wind power may actually increase the use of other fuels.
Add to this, the monies for massive infrastructure improvements, and turbine maintenance.

 

[rnatalli]

This doesn't surprise me. The U.S. is behind when it comes to this technology. Had we pushed it back in the 70's, it'd be us selling it to other countries.

I'm not a big fan of wind power myself. Anything with moving parts makes me nervous.

 

[highfigh]

This doesn't surprise me. The U.S. is behind when it comes to this technology. Had we pushed it back in the 70's, it'd be us selling it to other countries.

I'm not a big fan of wind power myself. Anything with moving parts makes me nervous.

I have a friend whose company builds wind, solar, fossil fuel and nuclear power plants. He said the cost to refurb a windmill is ridiculous. Just sending the generators back to the factory costs too much to make it viable on a large scale.

He did say that the US is heading back to more nuclear energy, though. The problem is that it takes a long time for everything to fall into place because the regulations keep changing and so many people still don't trust it. Even though France is a favorite whipping boy here, they are generating close to 80% of their electricity with nukes.

 

[lsiberian]

Unfortunately, Wind Power isn't the panacea that they claim it is.
Because of the way the power grid works, it's a juggling act, constantly trying to match supply with demand to avoid dips and surges, the variable production of wind turbines is treated as part of the demand side of the equation.

What happens is, a benchmark level of power is provided from large plants, and other plants are kept burning to be able to provide the maximum likely power (peak load) needed as it varies through the day. As demand drops, those plants are diverted 'off line' from power generation, and as demand rises they are brought back on to resume generating the needed power. These plants burn fuel whether or not they are producing electricity.

In other words, these peak load plants must continue burning fuel when demand falls or wind production rises, because either trend may reverse at any time. Because the wins turbines are out of the control of the grid's dispatchers, (along with user demand), the wind turbines' only effect is to bring the spinning standby plants in and out of production. But, don't forget, the plants continue to burn their fuel. And the additional fluctuations of wind power add to the cost and inefficiency of that burning.

A further irony is that because an increase in wind power capacity is seen on the grid as an increase in demand fluctuation, it requires dedication of other grid capacity to cover it. Rather than reduce, wind power may actually increase the use of other fuels.
Add to this, the monies for massive infrastructure improvements, and turbine maintenance.

It's insane that we have people pushing wind so hard. Wind energy is bad news bears for industrialized areas. It's not what it's cracked up to be. Tidal energy is much more promising in my view.

however in remote areas it's one of the best sources of energy on the planet.

I have a friend whose company builds wind, solar, fossil fuel and nuclear power plants. He said the cost to refurb a windmill is ridiculous. Just sending the generators back to the factory costs too much to make it viable on a large scale.

He did say that the US is heading back to more nuclear energy, though. The problem is that it takes a long time for everything to fall into place because the regulations keep changing and so many people still don't trust it. Even though France is a favorite whipping boy here, they are generating close to 80% of their electricity with nukes.

Nuclear power isn't the silver bullet it's cracked up to be. What do you do with the waste?

Coal seems to be the most reliable and surprisingly the safest.

 

[jinjuku]

The bad news : It's to foreign companies.

"The U.S. government handed out $502 million in grants for a dozen wind- and solar-power projects from Maine to South Texas, the first round in a new subsidy program designed to spur renewable-energy investment.
...
But while the wind farms and solar installations are in the U.S., the profits from these projects are flowing mainly to European companies and developers owned by private-equity investors."

From WSJ >> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125182848772276871.html

It would kind of make sense. Just like the Japanese had 20 year head start on small displacement, fuel efficient, tight tolerance, long lasting power plants, the Europeans have been much more about:

Geothermal, Nuclear, Wind (I don't know about solar) for the past 20+ years. They have the expertise. To bad Reagan took the solar panels off the White House that Jimmy Carter had installed. I think that speaks volumes about the American mindset when it comes to these matters. I am not too terribly surprised.

 

[griffinconst]

After we spend trillions on land, turbines, and infrastucture, a flock of birds will be killed flying into a wind farm. The following day wind power will be found too dangerous and that it creates noise pollution that bothers animals.
Thus begins the end of wind energy.
I like the tidal idea mentioned by lsiberian, however it might someday kill a fish, thus begins the end of tidal energy.

 

[highfigh]

It's insane that we have people pushing wind so hard. Wind energy is bad news bears for industrialized areas. It's not what it's cracked up to be. Tidal energy is much more promising in my view.

however in remote areas it's one of the best sources of energy on the planet.



Nuclear power isn't the silver bullet it's cracked up to be. What do you do with the waste?

Coal seems to be the most reliable and surprisingly the safest.

Coal is good for BTU/pound and is generally safe (unless too much coal dust becomes airborne where there's an ignition source) but the mercury and H2SO4 that comes with it are terrible pollutants. Spent reactor rods can be reclaimed more efficiently than in the past.

 

[rnatalli]

Just to add some data to the discussion, Switzerland generates over 50% of its electricity from hydropower. The rest is solar and nuclear. Switzerland is small, but Sun Tzu once said that "management of many is the same as management of few. It is a matter of organization."

 

[highfigh]

Just to add some data to the discussion, Switzerland generates over 50% of its electricity from hydropower. The rest is solar and nuclear. Switzerland is small, but Sun Tzu once said that "management of many is the same as management of few. It is a matter of organization."

People, maybe but he didn't see our power grid.

 

[Rickster71]

It would kind of make sense. Just like the Japanese had 20 year head start on small displacement, fuel efficient, tight tolerance, long lasting power plants, the Europeans have been much more about:

Geothermal, Nuclear, Wind (I don't know about solar) for the past 20+ years. They have the expertise. To bad Reagan took the solar panels off the White House that Jimmy Carter had installed. I think that speaks volumes about the American mindset when it comes to these matters. I am not too terribly surprised.

We ( AT&T Bell Labs) did have the jump, with regards to solar power.
http://www.porticus.org/bell/belllabs_photovoltaics.html
They were too inefficient then and still are now, unfortunately.

Reagan took solar panels down in his second term, due to their inefficiency and $12 dollar a barrel oil.
Bush put new panels up in 2002.

 

[yettitheman]

After we spend trillions on land, turbines, and infrastucture, a flock of birds will be killed flying into a wind farm. The following day wind power will be found too dangerous and that it creates noise pollution that bothers animals.
Thus begins the end of wind energy.
I like the tidal idea mentioned by lsiberian, however it might someday kill a fish, thus begins the end of tidal energy.

Nice haiku.