Thread: Hydro vs. Wind Power Industries

Originally Posted by El_Zoido

...
I like free markets, the whole world loves free markets.
...
My solution:
Replace the freakish beast with a renewable based energy system....

That's not a free market solution.

Originally Posted by El_Zoido

If you would have a really free market energy sector, wouldn't that also require the possibility of any town or even an individual citizen to be able to provide all their energy by themselves?

We have that freedom now in America. Currently the cost of RE is prohibitive. The difference is getting smaller with the rise of energy prices, but it's not quite there. It takes 10-15 years for an RE system to pay for itself for an individual. Most people can't or don't want to put that much cash up front for their electricity. I intend to do it in about 10 years. I'll offset the cost by building in the middle of nowhere where land prices are cheaper. I plan to go off grid. I can get free used batteries as I work in a related field and can do most of the work myself. The hard part is minimizing cooling costs in TX.

Check this out. www.homepower.com

Originally Posted by Texan

We have that freedom now in America. Currently the cost of RE is prohibitive. The difference is getting smaller with the rise of energy prices, but it's not quite there. It takes 10-15 years for an RE system to pay for itself for an individual. Most people can't or don't want to put that much cash up front for their electricity. I intend to do it in about 10 years. I'll offset the cost by building in the middle of nowhere where land prices are cheaper. I plan to go off grid. I can get free used batteries as I work in a related field and can do most of the work myself. The hard part is minimizing cooling costs in TX.

Check this out. www.homepower.com

The idea of energy independence is awesome isn't it? ;-)
If you plan to build a home, you should consider an energy efficient design. As far as I know, it's abit tricky to get state of the art parts (windows, insulation materials,...) in the US. But if your home has very little heat exchange with the outside, cooling shouldn't be that big a problem.
There are cheap house designs that can be heated with a few candles when it's -20°c outside, they would also remain cool with very very very little air conditioning.

I thought the story of a german village that has become an attraction for international visitors for sucessfully managing energy independence would fit in here :

A Power Grid of Their Own: German VillageBecomes Modelfor Renewable Energy - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Originally Posted by Texan

Do they even use coal in Oregon? It wasn't even mentioned in the story. Am I missing something or are you trying to put a round peg in a square hole?


El Zoido - We use similar wind generators in Texas. We have hundreds and maybe thousands of them in West TX. The deserts and plains of West TX do nothing but generate energy. West TX is covered with oil and natural gas fields and wind farms. I guess TX planned their power better because they also planned ahead for transmitting all of the excess wind power to heavily populated areas to avoid overproduction. I put the blame on whatever state agency is regulating the power.

I think they should immediately build lines to sell power to neighboring states. Even if they don't get full market rate for the power, it beats paying wind farms to not produce.

It's the point that it is negative press for alternate power technologies yet we also subsidize the coal industry as well as the coal-fired power plant industry. Why weren't they shut down because of too much power on the grid? Wouldn't it have made more sense to close them down for 200 hours at a clip?

Wind power is not working out that well in the UK - except for the landowners who make big money having windmills on their land.

Gerald Warner: Fuelling An Inconvenient Delusion That Spells Ruin For Scotland

Gerald Warner: Fuelling An Inconvenient Delusion That Spells Ruin For Scotland
Sunday, 11 March 2012 09:09 Gerald Warner, Scotland on Sunday
Wind power – more accurately wind impotence, since turbines operate at just 24 per cent of capacity – is the curse of Scotland. One of the most beautiful landscapes in Europe has been brutally ravaged, families have been driven into fuel poverty, pensioners have been presented with the lethal dilemma “heat or eat” – all to appease the neurotic prejudices of global warming fanatics.

Last week, the punitive costs of this lunacy were exposed in a report by Professor Gordon Hughes, professor of economics at Edinburgh University. He has calculated that the bill for wind energy by 2020 will cost consumers £120 billion. Yet generating the same amount of electricity from efficient gas-powered stations would cost only £13bn. Where the full insanity of the renewables option is brought home is in Professor Hughes’ claim that, beyond the crippling cost to consumers, “there is a significant risk that annual CO2 emissions could be greater under the Wind Scenario than the Gas Scenario”. The optimistic forecast is that wind power might reduce carbon emissions by 2.8 per cent: the worst-case scenario, as the quote above shows, is actually a negative carbon reduction – achieved at a cost of £120bn.

The inefficiency of wind turbines requires perpetual back-up by building gas turbine power stations – running two parallel energy generation systems, each alternately redundant, in times of economic crisis. The fiscal ratchet is turning relentlessly. The Renewables Obligation, introduced in Scotland in 2002, forces electricity suppliers to source an increasing proportion of power from renewables, currently 11.1 per cent and rising. By 2027 this scam will have cost UK customers £32bn.

Rook customers for a further £24 a year towards the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target, £42 to subsidise wind farms, £13 from gas consumers to fund the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and £25 to support renewables, and what do you have? An average Scottish household energy bill of £1,345, with families spending more than 14 per cent of their monthly income on gas and electricity, compared with 8 per cent in 2005. Yet by 2020 these costs will be recalled nostalgically as the days of cheaper energy, once the green taxes really kick in. There are now 900,000 Scottish households in fuel poverty, which the SNP government has pledged to eliminate by November 2016. They are going about it in a strange way.

Originally Posted by El_Zoido

There are cheap house designs that can be heated with a few candles when it's -20°c outside, they would also remain cool with very very very little air conditioning.

And we could get our food by hunting and gathering it...


Kramer

Originally Posted by kramer

And we could get our food by hunting and gathering it...


Kramer

So you tell me, that using the 20th century equivalent of an open fireplace to heat your primitive shelter, is more advanced than a 21st Century building design, that makes all forms of heating unneccessary by utilizing high-tech materials, enginieering & energy efficent architecture? Soooo smart... incredible.

Some people simply enjoy being dependent and pay for somebody else to provide them with the energy they require to enjoy their mediocre standard of living.
Other prefer energy autonomy, independence and a higher standard of living.

You got the choice, self-inflicted dependence or freedom.

Originally Posted by El_Zoido

So you tell me, that using the 20th century equivalent of an open fireplace to heat your primitive shelter, is more advanced than a 21st Century building design, that makes all forms of heating unneccessary by utilizing high-tech materials, enginieering & energy efficent architecture? Soooo smart... incredible.

No, I'm telling you in a somewhat sarcastic way that this is where environmentalists (not all of them) would like to take us...back to the days of very little resource use and a simple basic lifestyle.


Kramer

Originally Posted by kramer

No, I'm telling you in a somewhat sarcastic way that this is where environmentalists (not all of them) would like to take us...back to the days of very little resource use and a simple basic lifestyle.

Kramer

I think that nowerdays that's sort of a myth/legend that is being spread to discredit renewables and energy efficency...
the term conservation somehow still implies having less, eventhough today it's all about having more by reducing waste.

;-)

The point is not about having less but using less to get the same results.
If you take a look at trade shows like CES TV's are being marketed on low energy consumption and the savings being made by manufacturers are amazing. If you really do have money to burn then go out and buy a set that uses electric like it's going out of fashion but many people will like the fact that a TV set with good performance uses much less energy and saves them money. I really have no idea why the idea of energy efficiency is seen in such a negative light in the US.
The environmentalists don't want you to have less stuff they just think that stuff can be made more efficiently and with the added bonus of it costing less.

Originally Posted by El_Zoido

So you tell me, that using the 20th century equivalent of an open fireplace to heat your primitive shelter, is more advanced than a 21st Century building design, that makes all forms of heating unneccessary by utilizing high-tech materials, enginieering & energy efficent architecture? Soooo smart... incredible.

Some people simply enjoy being dependent and pay for somebody else to provide them with the energy they require to enjoy their mediocre standard of living.
Other prefer energy autonomy, independence and a higher standard of living.

You got the choice, self-inflicted dependence or freedom.

Actually you don't. In most populated areas, residents are required to be hooked up to the grid. Many municipalities have ordinances disallowing wind generators and some even place limits on Solar panels (citing fire hazards as the main reasons) which is bullshit). Out in the extreme rural areas and or up in the remote foothills, it is still possible but if a trend started where people started moving to places like that and self-powering, growing their own food and staying off-grid, there would most definitely be legislation put into place to put an end to it. Corporate America needs complacent slave laborers and they only way the can do that is to insure that the government requires you to pay them for basic services like power, food and fuel.

For me my dream home would be in the mountains of Montana. Completely self powered using a system of wind, solar and an ethanol-powered generator. I would have an indoor agricultural system to grow food all year round including corn to make my own ethanol. I would convert all my vehicles to use either ethanol or bio-diesel so I never have to buy another ounce of gas. I would construct a battery wall made out of lithium polymer batteries to hold onto surplus power and act as a backup in case of any failure in power-delivery systems. For waste disposal, I would use a large septic system that separates and pressurizes methane from biological and organic waste for use in heating during the winter. The left over solid waste would be nitrate rich and perfect for compost. I would raise chickens to insure a dependable source of protein. A system like this means one can live with most of the comforts of modern life without having to pay a dime for basic living expenses. I could get some odd work 2-3 days per week to pay for luxuries like internet, cable and cell phones (assuming that I do not go into debt to build this home, I would strive to pay for it all up front so that not bank gets to profit from my hard work).

Originally Posted by El_Zoido

I think that nowerdays that's sort of a myth/legend that is being spread to discredit renewables and energy efficency...

No, it's what I've read a number of times over the last few years from some green sources.

Originally Posted by El_Zoido

the term conservation somehow still implies having less, eventhough today it's all about having more by reducing waste.

;-)

No, I have read enough on this issue to realize that we would be having much less and a much lower standard of living if we were to go the way the greens want. For a glimpse of what I am talking about, I have read that it would take over 5 Earths to supply everybody on Earth with the same standard of living as we have today in the US and over 2 Earths to give everybody the same standard of living in Europe. And then when you factor in sustainable development which in part means preserving for future generations, that means even more of a cut in our lifestyle. And to facilitate this transition, they are already talking about changing the definition of GDP/Standard of Living to include more things like having more lesiure time, more cleaner air and water, more forests to hike in.


Kramer