Wind power is a waste of time.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready If power was dealt with at an individual level, by individual homeowners, business owners, we could end all of our power issues. Why continue to support a huge grid as our main means of energy, when we can instead maintain it as a "backup", or dismantle it? We have the technology currently to retrofit existing homes with individual power production from wind and solar, geothermal, etc., so I see no reason why that shouldn't be the obvious answer, the most individually productive answer, and the most logically sound answer if you are concerned with longevity.

Well because for one, there are massive economies of scale that make a power grid inexpensive to the end consumer. Look at the payoff periods of home-energy generation systems (i.e. the "break-even" point between buying power from the grid and paying for the cost to produce it yourself). In applications where 100% independence is required, the break-even point is laughably far in the future.

For another, "individuals" can't always get ANY of the sources of power you mention. What is available to someone living on the 15th floor of a 30-story highrise? For that matter, what is available to the highrise itself? It won't have enough roof space for wind or solar, and won't have enough ground for geothermal.

[Osborn F Enready]

Tivo said: Well because for one, there are massive economies of scale that make a power grid inexpensive to the end consumer. Look at the payoff periods of home-energy generation systems (i.e. the "break-even" point between buying power from the grid and paying for the cost to produce it yourself). In applications where 100% independence is required, the break-even point is laughably far in the future.

I agree, it currently is in the future, but there are logical reasons for that. The market isn't well informed of their options (its a relatively new market), and the independence that comes with them, as well as the price is still high, though coming down, among other things.

You know technology costs money, and when technology is new, the first few leaps cost the most, at a time when the market is usually at its smallest. Over time, solar and wind power will become significantly cheaper, but that comes with more and more people creating that demand.

I have been keeping my eye on the solar and wind market for the past couple years, and from what I see, it has a lot of growth potential from all sides, all of which will most likely benefit the nation overall.

Tivo said: For another, "individuals" can't always get ANY of the sources of power you mention. What is available to someone living on the 15th floor of a 30-story highrise?

The owner of that highrise may not know of his options, and there are many. I would think the owner would see how wise it would be to be able to bill for power, in addition to rent, or use "green power" as a sales tool to entice more "green oriented" renters.

Individual units could always use small windmills, if they had access to a window or balcony, assuming they can get "permission" from the landlord.

Tivo said: For that matter, what is available to the highrise itself? It won't have enough roof space for wind or solar, and won't have enough ground for geothermal.

That is not the case, and the product lines are growing quickly.

You can buy standard size or custom fit solar-panels that easily merge into many types of architecture, there are some designs and designers into incorporating solar heat, solar cooking, solar panels for power. You can buy solar-roofing shingles, roof mounted panels, and there is much discussion about a new multi-wavelength solar film, that can be applied to just about anything.

Check some of this stuff out:


Solar Roofing Shingles - Google Product Search
Solar Power Systems by SunWize-Solar Energy Products, Grid-Tie & Remote PV Power
Welcome to Sundance Solar - solar energy, solar battery chargers, rechargeable batteries, educational kits
Real Goods Sustainable Products for Green Living and Solar Lifestyles
Solar and Renewable Energy Products: Solar Power, Wind Power, Alternative Energy, Photovoltaics, Off Line, Water Heating, Solar Pool Heating, Solar Energy Systems
Solar Energy, Roof Panels & Flat Tiles for Buildings and Home Electricity
Solar Panels, Lights & Lighting - Solar Cells, Heating & Fountains
First Solar, Inc. - Next Generation Thin Film Solar Modules

[Gods_Mercenary]

Really Cool, I think solar is one of the best options, mixed with something not dependant on the sun, hydro and nukes would be my picks.

[Praxius]

Man if we could make nuclear energy drinks, imagine how big we'd be!

[christibe]

Quote by: gallo More expensive than coal fired power plants? Which pollutes more? More unsightly than LA, or Denver, or any other city? So, these windmill farms aren't producing any power? Any reasonable prediction about that? Are you aware that "fusion power" and "nuclear fission" are not gods and do not require capitalization in English? Then please explain to us the difference between graphite moderated reactors and water moderated reactors. Why is this meaningful when discussing Chernobyl? Please explain the impact on nuclear physics of the communistic philosophy of the state in question. Should we also not mention Three Mile Island? Please explain the impact of "poor or no quality control" on the event rather than the impact of inadequate training. Please explain the difficulties in reducing a reactor from full power to 4%. Like you, the inadequately trained operators at the Chernobyl reactor weren't aware that it can't be done. Please explain the meaning of the term "poison" as it applies to a nuclear reaction. Please explain your qualifications to judge quality control of Soviet reactors. How long did you live there and how long did you work at a reactor that you are qualified to offer an opinion? Please explain how the many reactors built to the same design that have been functioning for decades without incident were poorly built. Please be specific as to how they were poorly built. Please enumerate those that have exploded. Was the first US reactor also poorly built, since it was of a similar design? You don't say! How is that meaningful to your claims about graphite moderated reactors? Why are non-Soviet graphite moderated reactors not "poorly designed"? Do you know what I'm talking about?

Oh no, don't compare Den to LA. Denver and Colorado are taking great pains to harness wind and solar energy as sustainable power supplies. Colorado is of course naturally suited to these endeavors.

That is the key to finding sustainable energy sources. Finding what a region has the largest surplus of and discovering how to use that instead of fossil and nuclear fuels. You can't just decide that one method is best and expect it to work everywhere. Nebraska can't really rely on hydroelectric power from dams, since there are no major rivers or hills that water flows downward from. However, being a large plains state, wind and plant derived ethanol are practical and sustainable. Delaware is covered in urban areas, and is rather small to boot. Attempting to grow acres of corn or soybeans is not very practical, however since it lies on the coast in a fairly interesting manner, looking to the sea is probably the most practical venue.

Once fusion is here, great, not much to worry about since a tiny amount of waste = power virtually for all. In 20 years though, thanks Pooey for the estimate, I hope we won't need it because everyone was able to take their collective heads out of the sand Grogy is neck deep in, and we will be utilizing our local resources to power ourselves.

[rmnunez]

My doubts about solar energy as a substitute relate to environmental impact since I figure it would take a large surface to generate the electricity needed.

Siemens recently started construction of what will be the world's biggest solar energy power station, covering about 620 acres and capable of sustaining 130,000 households with a potential output of 116 megawatts. The project will cost €426m (£290m).

Does anyone know how many acres a conventional thermoelectric power plant capable of generating 116 megawatts would occupy?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: rmnunez My doubts about solar energy as a substitute relate to environmental impact since I figure it would take a large surface to generate the electricity needed. Siemens recently started construction of what will be the world's biggest solar energy power station, covering about 620 acres and capable of sustaining 130,000 households with a potential output of 116 megawatts. The project will cost €426m (£290m). Does anyone know how many acres a conventional thermoelectric power plant capable of generating 116 megawatts would occupy?

Not nearly as many. Power sources like wind and solar are ridiculously inefficient when it comes to land usage.

The nuke near me, a particularly old, small, and inefficient one, still does 500 megawatts on only a couple hundred acres.

[Osborn F Enready]

I can supply my own homes usage by just using my own roof space Tivo.

Keep your acreage.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I can supply my own homes usage by just using my own roof space Tivo. Keep your acreage.

Well, like I said, that works fine for you.

What about the people who live here:


Having everyone live in such a way that they had sufficient resources on their own property to generate all of their own power would cause such sprawl and energy waste in other areas as to make it worse than worthless.

[Osborn F Enready]

Tivo said: Well, like I said, that works fine for you. What about the people who live here:

Like I said, there is intrest in the deal for the land owner, landlord also, as well as many options to meet those needs.

Tivo said: Having everyone live in such a way that they had sufficient resources on their own property to generate all of their own power would cause such sprawl and energy waste in other areas as to make it worse than worthless.

I did not say landowners, or building owners COULDN'T invest in solar and wind power, did I? They have the right, and technology is working to provide the means. Technology takes time, and those needs will soon be met.

As a property DEVELOPER, this would have much payoff, since new building desgins can account and make use of solar, wind and geothermal methods in NEW designs.

Retrofits are more complicated, but since when are problems "too hard" to figure out?

[tivodan1116]

I'm not saying it couldn't eventually be figured out, but from your first post in the thread you acted like it would be something that could be done right now. The technology does not exist to provide a high rise like that with enough power through wind, solar, or otherwise, without the use of far more space than the high rise has.

[5010]

The thing that drives most decisions about energy is cost. How much does one spend on power? If one spends A amount on making a more efficient attic, B amount for solar, C for wind, D for geothermal, E for biolfuel, etc, how much will one save in power? Avoid products that break down before break even. The same criteria filters out products that take more fossil energy to manufacture than they will produce before break down. Then, what are the remaining options, and which are the best bang for the buck in one's location?

We don't have to think in terms of black and white. The grid is a hybrid of renewable and fossil. Many buildings are also hybrids.

And consider the dangers and mitigating methods. New buildings in my area are tighter than the old ones to make climate control more efficient, so it is wise to open them up and air them out occasionally. What weather threatens the generators? If hail is probable, one only considers hail-resistant materials.

[Osborn F Enready]

Tivo said: The technology does not exist to provide a high rise like that with enough power through wind, solar, or otherwise, without the use of far more space than the high rise has.

Are you sure of this? I am not, but I don't claim to be. I do know solar panels and solar film technology are becoming more productive per square foot everyday.

For example, the highrise could replace every other window with a solar panel, and then coat the window frames, facer panels, with solar film, and hot roof the top, finishing it with a rooftop antenna solar/wind combination array.

Even if it didn't provide all power needed, it would greatly reduce power needed from the grid, and would require rather basic maintenance that on-hand maintenance personnel could provide with a week or two of training.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Well, like I said, that works fine for you. What about the people who live here: Having everyone live in such a way that they had sufficient resources on their own property to generate all of their own power would cause such sprawl and energy waste in other areas as to make it worse than worthless.

I would like to re-introduce my yet untested idea about energy generation, the photo of that highrise will help one imagine it.

Everyone in that building (if it is for living purposes) has a shower, a sink, a bathtub, tolets, and so forth. Water is running through pipes everywhere from the bottom to the top and form the top to the bottom.
That means 'flowing water' . Take advantage of that by a system that can create fast moving water - like a man made waterfall within the building it's self. So that the water source can be also used as a water force to produce energy before exiting into the main sewer system. Even if it is recycled a few times in the process. And planning to build in such a system for newer constructed highrises.

I am not a scientist so I am guessing here, but it seems like such could be invented once our big thinkers put it too task. If the in-house water system could produce enough power from the water systems it would be self-contained. (if it made enough energy to power the water pumps and also provide the electronic needs). Failing only if you ran out of water.

That building in the photo looks to be as tall as a dam. so why not?

Any comments?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: tivodan1116 I'm not saying it couldn't eventually be figured out, but from your first post in the thread you acted like it would be something that could be done right now. The technology does not exist to provide a high rise like that with enough power through wind, solar, or otherwise, without the use of far more space than the high rise has.

Your point might mean we should re-think how we construct our buildings.
We have nuclear plants that can still be used for the short time needed to develope and install the solor, wind, and water powered alternatives.
This is not like a fast food operation, but we should instantly (if not sooner) start the work on our alternative energy technologies with a little push form Washington DC. Why wait to get it on the fast track with that "oh hum" attitude.

[Technosoul]

And the debatabe - energy from out of the blue - is being advanced.

Space Power Generator Patent

[christibe]

Quote by: Technosoul I would like to re-introduce my yet untested idea about energy generation, the photo of that highrise will help one imagine it. Everyone in that building (if it is for living purposes) has a shower, a sink, a bathtub, tolets, and so forth. Water is running through pipes everywhere from the bottom to the top and form the top to the bottom. That means 'flowing water' . Take advantage of that by a system that can create fast moving water - like a man made waterfall within the building it's self. So that the water source can be also used as a water force to produce energy before exiting into the main sewer system. Even if it is recycled a few times in the process. And planning to build in such a system for newer constructed highrises. I am not a scientist so I am guessing here, but it seems like such could be invented once our big thinkers put it too task. If the in-house water system could produce enough power from the water systems it would be self-contained. (if it made enough energy to power the water pumps and also provide the electronic needs). Failing only if you ran out of water. That building in the photo looks to be as tall as a dam. so why not? Any comments?

Water from the top of that building does not run straight down a pipe to the bottom... this isn't a question of science, it is of engineering. If your idea was at all possible it might only negate the power needed to move water against gravity to the top floors. The effort and refitting of piping and re-engineering the plumbing system of an existing building would be far more wasteful than not using the plumbing system at all. It could be beneficial in brand new structures, but again only to make the plumbing self-sustaining, as in pumps could not require outside power.

But, I'm no engineer, mathematician or plumber, so... my thoughts are probably just as good as yours.

[HelioPrime]

As green as wind power seems it isn't enough for most modern energy needs. I've heard people say that combined wind/solar plants in the southwest desert would be enough to power the entire west coast. But what about the east coats?

Just saying, according to the Canadian windpower website they can generate 20 megawatts.

Well my state here has a spread population of over a million. The local Millstone Nuclear station can only produce 2,020 megawatts or enough for 500,000 homes.
http://www.dom.com/about/stations/nu...tone/index.jsp

So basically if we wanted total green power that'd be ALOT of wind generators. Who's backyard gets them?

[rmnunez]

Osborn:

I can supply my own homes usage by just using my own roof space Tivo.

Electricity consumption in households differs immensely throughout the world. Even within the OECD (industrialised countries), an average European household consumes 4,667 kWh, whereas a household in the US consumes 11,209 kWh and in Japan 5,945kWh per year . Your energy savings | Greenpeace International

A picture of a 7.2 kW photovoltaic array:

a 2,880 square foot array with a theoretical output of 30.5kW:

[tivodan1116]

As I said, our current technology is nowhere near the level needed to have individuals provide for all of their own energy usage through any reasonably cost-effective means (sure, you could run a natural gas or diesel generator for the whole time, but the costs would be ridiculous and nothing would benefit)

Not to mention, even if the efficiency does rise drastically in either solar or wind, AND as others have said, our "building design" thought changes so as to make supporting oneself in a reasonable amount of space possible, what if Mother Nature does not cooperate? There are lots of areas of the United States where, no matter what the efficiency, there are simply not enough days of wind or sun to power a family's needs.

Finally, the issue of cost cannot be overlooked even if we are to assume MASSIVE price reductions in economics of scale. A solar array such as the above one costs about $40K, not installed, right now. That buys me about 40-50 years of power from the grid, barely worth it even if I stay in the house for the rest of my life.