The case for wind farms

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

How much of that are you subsidizing with your two vehicles and five boats?

The VW TDI that gets 50 +MPG? I don't know... since most of it is bio diesel.. you tell me


Another FAIL from another fringe rightie.. OH MY

OMG, to bad that you know so little about this. We could have 50-60 mpg on diesels right now if it wasn't for the greenies out there. the diesel polutants in the form of nox (causing smog) is the the reason why we don't have the fuel mileage right now. the only way to rid nox and get 50-60 mpg is to put $10,000 exhaust systems on those cars. many diesel are going to these exhaust systems but it is making them unaffordable.

DUUUUUUD

I have been driving VW diesels since I was in college.... my old early 80's VW Bunny Diesel.... 45 to 50 MPG even back then in the mid eighties.
U should learn something about them... since they have been right there under your nose... for 30+ years... oh.. and no they do not need special exhausts to pass emissions so PUHLEEEEZE don't try to trot that lame horse out.

try again, I didn't say that they didn't get 40-50 mpg, I said thay don't in this country because of emission regulations and yes the new ones do have special exhaust so they can tune them to get the better gas mileage and still pass emissions. Older diesels did not have to pass emissions. try talking about things you actually know, your ignorance in this area makes you look bad.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I have been driving VW diesels since I was in college.... my old early 80's VW Bunny Diesel.... 45 to 50 MPG even back then in the mid eighties.
U should learn something about them... since they have been right there under your nose... for 30+ years... oh.. and no they do not need special exhausts to pass emissions so PUHLEEEEZE don't try to trot that lame horse out.

The 80s diesels, esp the Mercedes ones, were filthy creatures. And until just a couple years ago, none were for sale in California due to emission requirements. Now we have the VWs and a few others - I keep hoping Subaru will bring their boxer diesel here.

There definitely were hurdles to clear to bring them back. But I think a considerable chunk of the cost differential is due to demand, not the tech required.

I had a 1982 300 D back in the day as well... funny thing.... SOOT came out... looked bad.. but never did it fail the DEQ for emissions.

it didn't fail because they had no test for the soot.

[quade 4]

Quote

Kalland, why don't you give your buddy Quade a quick physics lesson.

If you're so certain, why don't you explain it to me?

Explain to me how much and which force it takes to cause two atoms of hydrogen to fuse and the how that happens in a star.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jonstark 8]

Here are a few minor talking points...

There will be NO ESCAPE from dependance on oil. The only way to have it in the future will be to conserve it now.

To equal the amount of energy dispensed by a single neighborhood gas station in a single day you would have to completely cover an entire county with solar cells.

Conservation is not only getting more MPG. Cars get fewer mpg than motorcycles but they spew FAR smaller amounts of particulate and smog producing pollutants. To be good conservation has to be accomplished without poisoning the environment.

Wind farms may not be financially smart because the cost of installation is so high that recovery by selling the energy pushes the payback out so many years -but-

Back to my first premise. The problem of never being able to get away from oil is orders of magnitude greater than the public can imagine. Our only recourse is conservation to stretch what reserves we have for as long as we can. Some conservation methods are going to cause dismay. Wind farms along ridgelines, solar arrays blanketing open spaces, dams changing water courses, possibly hazardous nuke plants, expensive electric vehicles, etc. There are sacrifices that will have to be made. The NIMBY folks will have to buy in to the logic sooner or later that we all are in the same big boat and have to share the pain for a growing population.

jon

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I have been driving VW diesels since I was in college.... my old early 80's VW Bunny Diesel.... 45 to 50 MPG even back then in the mid eighties.
U should learn something about them... since they have been right there under your nose... for 30+ years... oh.. and no they do not need special exhausts to pass emissions so PUHLEEEEZE don't try to trot that lame horse out.

The 80s diesels, esp the Mercedes ones, were filthy creatures. And until just a couple years ago, none were for sale in California due to emission requirements. Now we have the VWs and a few others - I keep hoping Subaru will bring their boxer diesel here.

There definitely were hurdles to clear to bring them back. But I think a considerable chunk of the cost differential is due to demand, not the tech required.

I had a 1982 300 D back in the day as well... funny thing.... SOOT came out... looked bad.. but never did it fail the DEQ for emissions.

it didn't fail because they had no test for the soot.

Brilliant.........................NOT

You really are a funny little fella.. you were the one claiming all that nasty pollution coming out of them like NOX...

So mr expert.. what is DEQ testing for..... and failing cars for....

What are the components of soot again???

I wonder how many THOUSANDS of dollars I have saved in 30 years of getting 2 to 3 times what most of the rubes out there get out of their gas guzzlers. you can blither on all you want.... but the fact is diesels still do not put out the crap that standard SUV has since they were created for those with "size" issues

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Here are a few minor talking points...

There will be NO ESCAPE from dependance on oil. The only way to have it in the future will be to conserve it now.

To equal the amount of energy dispensed by a single neighborhood gas station in a single day you would have to completely cover an entire county with solar cells.

Conservation is not only getting more MPG. Cars get fewer mpg than motorcycles but they spew FAR smaller amounts of particulate and smog producing pollutants. To be good conservation has to be accomplished without poisoning the environment.

Wind farms may not be financially smart because the cost of installation is so high that recovery by selling the energy pushes the payback out so many years -but-

Back to my first premise. The problem of never being able to get away from oil is orders of magnitude greater than the public can imagine. Our only recourse is conservation to stretch what reserves we have for as long as we can. Some conservation methods are going to cause dismay. Wind farms along ridgelines, solar arrays blanketing open spaces, dams changing water courses, possibly hazardous nuke plants, expensive electric vehicles, etc. There are sacrifices that will have to be made. The NIMBY folks will have to buy in to the logic sooner or later that we all are in the same big boat and have to share the pain for a growing population.

jon

Lets all count down to the next human milestone...We should hit 7 BILLION by the end of this month. WOO HOO

CLOCK

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

Quote

Kalland, why don't you give your buddy Quade a quick physics lesson.

If you're so certain, why don't you explain it to me?

Explain to me how much and which force it takes to cause two atoms of hydrogen to fuse and the how that happens in a star.

So because a tomato can not grow without water the by your logic a tomato is water!??!?

I would defer to the Professor for your education.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Kalland, why don't you give your buddy Quade a quick physics lesson.

If you're so certain, why don't you explain it to me?

Explain to me how much and which force it take to cause two atoms of hydrogen to fuse and the how that happens in a star.

So because a tomato can not grow without water the by your logic a tomato is water!??!?

I would defer to the Professor for your education.

Actually, a tomato is more water than anything else.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,991]

>but I've seen plenty of VW TDIs doing it, they didn't look old or abused. Diesel
>engines throw belch out crap and their drivers should get the full dose.

So do cruddy gas engines; I've seen plenty of blue smoke come belching out of old gas cars. Modern diesels are remarkably clean though (when they're working right of course!) Indeed, modern LEV diesels are _cleaner_ than most gasoline cars made even 10 years ago.

Modern diesel LEV limits: NOx:0.30 CO:4.2 PM:0.08 HC:0.018
1993 gasoline EPA limits: NOx:1.0 CO:3.4 PM:0.2 HC:0.41

It should be noted that this has only been possible in the last few years, since ultra-low sulfur diesel has become the standard. Sulfur is a catalyst poison and therefore cannot be used with diesel catalytic converters.

It should also be noted that gasoline engines are still in the lead overall; a 2011 SULEV gasoline vehicle is still cleaner than a 2011 ULEV diesel vehicle.

[billvon 2,991]

>To equal the amount of energy dispensed by a single neighborhood gas station in
>a single day you would have to completely cover an entire county with solar cells.

Interesting claim. Let's do the math:

Let's take a filling station that sells 15,000 gallons of gas a day. (about 1000 gasoline sales a day, or a little less than one a minute.) That's 36 kilowatt-hours per gallon chemical energy, which translates to 12 kilowatt-hours per gallon effective energy (since cars are about 33% efficient thermodynamically.)

To put it another way, a gas station delivers about 180 megawatt-hours a day of useful energy.

What would we need to replace that energy with solar? Take the same useful energy as applied to an electric vehicle:

EV's are about 85% efficient, charger-to-wheels. So for 180 mwhr's useful energy we'd need 211 mwhrs of delivered energy. Here in San Diego we get 6 hours of direct sun a day on average, so we'd need 35 megawatts of solar panels. Modern panels are 150 watts per square foot, so we'd need 235,000 square feet of panels. That's a square 485 feet on a side.

The closest gas station to me (Amoco) is in a mini mall with a Bevmo, a pizza place etc. The parking lot for the mini-mall is 300x700, or 210,000 square feet. Thus by covering that one parking lot you'd get almost all the power needed to run that gas station if if were an EV charging station dispensing the same amount of useful energy.

Now cover the buildings themselves with panels as well and you'd cover the needs of the station.

[billvon 2,991]

>>I can absolutely guarantee no star would be able to operate without it.

>Kalland, why don't you give your buddy Quade a quick physics lesson.

Stars would not operate (or even form) without gravity. Gravity is what provides the energy to gather the hydrogen fuel, compress it to ignition temperatures and maintain the shape of the star once ignition has begun.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

>To equal the amount of energy dispensed by a single neighborhood gas station in
>a single day you would have to completely cover an entire county with solar cells.

Interesting claim. Let's do the math:...

Come on Bill!

You are using facts!

You can't do that in this sort of argument!

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[billvon 2,991]

>What would be the cost of such a construct?

Cost for conventional solar cells (cheapest available, $1.25/watt) would be around $43 million. For solar concentrators cost would be around $8 million, but would require more space (since they have to track the sun.)

>You'd need a heck of a battery bank to store that much juice.

Not as big as you might think. The busiest times at that gas station are noon and around 5pm, and both times are sun-synchronous i.e. that's when you have the most power. During those times the station would be drawing all its power from the array, even a little more (to be made up by battery or grid power.) The times that are the least busy are late night/early morning, when no power is being generated. Fortunately those times also correspond to the times that the grid has the most "extra" power.

One of the more interesting proposals I've seen was to put largish solar power systems along the trolley lines near downtown San Diego. It's a 600 volts DC system which is very easy to power via solar (600VDC is a common array voltage.) The trolley catenary lines are already set up to move megawatts of power, and the system would be providing extra power to the trolleys when they need it the most, since the schedule is busiest during the sunlight hours.

Since the trolleys have regen braking there's a transfer station that transfers energy back to the grid when the trolleys are slowing down. That same system can transfer the extra energy back to the grid when the trolleys don't need it.

[billvon 2,991]

>Let's say it does deliver 180 MWh/day. Even at a insane wholesale price
>of $.10 per MWh that would be $18M/day revenue generation.

That would be $18 a day revenue generation.

SDG+E pays me 2 to 4 cents per kwhr for "avoided cost" for power I generate. If they paid that they'd make $3600 a day. So a payback time of 16 years for just the solar array.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Lets all count down to the next human milestone...We should hit 7 BILLION by the end of this month. WOO HOO

So, which people do you propose eliminating? Asians? Africans? Republicans? Which ones should be euthanized and sterilized to avoid propagation?

Seems that global warming is a good idea. The oceans can rise and kill off billions! Just when the population rises, AGW saves the day!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,991]

>The oceans can rise and kill off billions!

And think of all that new waterfront property!

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Lets all count down to the next human milestone...We should hit 7 BILLION by the end of this month. WOO HOO

So, which people do you propose eliminating? Asians? Africans? Republicans? Which ones should be euthanized and sterilized to avoid propagation?

Seems that global warming is a good idea. The oceans can rise and kill off billions! Just when the population rises, AGW saves the day!

So... I wonder how many of you who think GW is not happening are going to deal with the reality when it jumps up and slaps you up side the head finally.

[chutem 0]

Quote

Quote

Lets all count down to the next human milestone...We should hit 7 BILLION by the end of this month. WOO HOO

So, which people do you propose eliminating? Asians? Africans? Republicans? Which ones should be euthanized and sterilized to avoid propagation?

Seems that global warming is a good idea. The oceans can rise and kill off billions! Just when the population rises, AGW saves the day!

Some would say start with lawyers, although I don't think there are enough of you to make a dent.

James

[rhaig 0]

Quote

So a payback time of 16 years for just the solar array.

what is the typical lifespan of conventional cells being discussed? I haven't researched that in a while, and I'm sure it's changed.

--
Rob

[billvon 2,991]

>what is the typical lifespan of conventional cells being discussed?

There's no wearout mechanism for the cells themselves. Early panels had serious EVA yellowing issues (EVA is the transparent "gel" the cells are embedded in) but that's been solved.

Nowadays the only mechanisms I know of that cause wearout are:

1) Slow expansion and contraction of the panel can eventually pull moisture into the interior of the panel; that starts corrosion and can eventually lead to failure. Supposedly modern panels have fixed this problem but since it can take decades for this problem to appear they haven't proven it yet.

2) Corrosion of the aluminum frame can result in failure of the panel

3) (most common) water gets into the wiring due to poor installation, conduit failure, abrasion of the insulation etc. This isn't as easy to avoid as it sounds; some of these installations have been up for 40 years now, and keeping anything sealed against the elements for 40 years isn't a trivial challenge.

I have panels that are 30 years old that are still putting out about 80% of rated power. Most modern panels are warrantied for 20-30 years.

[billvon 2,991]

>If the payback could be cut to 8 years and figure in maintenance costs,
>cleaning, panel replacement if they get damaged. Drop the ROI from 12%
>to 10%.

Also keep in mind that that's what SDG+E will pay you. If you are paying SDG+E 12 cents/kwhr, then _your_ avoided cost is far higher. Now your payback time for the panels themselves is 5 years. Add mounting structure, BOS components etc and you'd be at 10 or so years - provided yo use all the power available. If you have to sell excess to SDG+E. or buy power because you're not generating enough, that increases - so you are likely going to see something between 10 and 16 years.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Kalland, why don't you give your buddy Quade a quick physics lesson.

I think you need one much more than Paul does.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

>but I've seen plenty of VW TDIs doing it, they didn't look old or abused. Diesel
>engines throw belch out crap and their drivers should get the full dose.

So do cruddy gas engines; I've seen plenty of blue smoke come belching out of old gas cars.

Gas engines that blow smoke are practically always worn out, they blow smoke due to worn valve guides and piston rings/cylinders. Diesel engines typically blow soot from the start. Measurements of NO, CO, HC do not reflect this. If soot isn't a problem, then the owners of diesel powered cars shouldn't have a problem with the exhaust located on the hood so they can enjoy the soot more than those behind them.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

>but I've seen plenty of VW TDIs doing it, they didn't look old or abused. Diesel
>engines throw belch out crap and their drivers should get the full dose.

So do cruddy gas engines; I've seen plenty of blue smoke come belching out of old gas cars.

Gas engines that blow smoke are practically always worn out, they blow smoke due to worn valve guides and piston rings/cylinders. Diesel engines typically blow soot from the start. Measurements of NO, CO, HC do not reflect this. If soot isn't a problem, then the owners of diesel powered cars shouldn't have a problem with the exhaust located on the hood so they can enjoy the soot more than those behind them.

Hey I am good with that.. as long as you put the exhaust pipes that spew out the crap that burns my eyes and harms my lungs from gas guzzlers directly into their owners faces.

[billvon 2,991]

>Diesel engines typically blow soot from the start.

They used to. Not any more.

>If soot isn't a problem, then the owners of diesel powered cars shouldn't
>have a problem with the exhaust located on the hood so they can enjoy
>the soot more than those behind them.

Sure. You mount your exhaust pipe on your hood and I am certain diesel owners will follow suit. (After all, you should have even less of a problem with it.)