The Energy Thread

[Katy Lied]

:::Reserved:::

[TripletDaddy]

You should have called this the Potential Energy Thread.

[creekster]

You should have called this the Potential Energy Thread.

I'd be mnore isnterested if it was a perpetual energy thread.

[TripletDaddy]

I'd be mnore isnterested if it was a perpetual energy thread.

At any rate, I'm looking forward to a lot of interesting contributions from ERCougar. This topic is his baby.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Katy please relay any insight your energy expert professors share in your class. I am certain their Spanish degrees* gave them valuable insights into energy.



*(tongue in cheek, please anybody don't be offended...!)

[Katy Lied]

You should have called this the Potential Energy Thread.

That was funny.

I see you're back.

NWUF: I believe the bar is a teeny bit lower for policy wonks.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Enjoy. Perhaps if you teach them enough they will refund your tuition?

[Katy Lied]

I'm being audacious and using negative discount rates for Renewable Energy Portfolios. For the "regular discount rates" for classic time values of money, they are never negative (heck, they are hardly zero), but I'll buy the argument that the longer a state puts off rmandating certain percentages for Renewable Energy Portfolios, the happier some people are.

The yield curves are quite odd looking.

[Katy Lied]

Fascinating explanation why windmills kill bats.

Previously, zoologists believed that bats couldn't cleanly navigate through the turbine blades. They'd get chopped up by the rotors.

Bat fans rejected this notion. Bats can navigate tight channels in the dark at full speed--they'd have no problems flying through the blades. Plus, autopsies of dead bats piled at the bottom of windmills showed the bats with no body trauma, looking like they were peacefully sleeping.

New explanation makes a lot more sense. Cute little bat comes flying along, lungs full of air. The wind turbulence creates a zone of low pressure right behind the blades. Bam! The air in the poor lil bat's lungs expands wildly, and the bat's lungs explode. Bat autopsies show incredible lung trauma.

Why bats and not birds? Birds' lungs are not as rigid as the bats and can expand to accommodate the additional air pressure. Birds however, fly slower so will get sliced in half.

[Joe Public]

I'm being audacious and using negative discount rates for Renewable Energy Portfolios. For the "regular discount rates" for classic time values of money, they are never negative (heck, they are hardly zero), but I'll buy the argument that the longer a state puts off rmandating certain percentages for Renewable Energy Portfolios, the happier some people are.

The yield curves are quite odd looking.

Not very often, but - depending on how one assigns a discount rate - not never.

[Green Monstah]

Is the government still keeping wind farms afloat with subsidies?

I love wind, but it has a few flaws (at least in Texas).

1. When it is most needed (summer), the wind doesn't blow nearly as hard as it needs to (you can lump this with general lack of predictability of wind).

2. When wind is needed/used (i.e. the shortage in TX this winter...wind was sort of the unsung hero of ERCOT), it is not displacing dirtier, less efficient, older coal-generated electricity. Instead, its displacing natural gas plants. If we want to be serious about energy indepependence, we have to start getting real about using natural gas (a cleaner fuel in carbon, Nox and Sox emissions) to produce a lion's share of our electricity. Wind, IMO, is stifling the use of NG, to an extent, and needs to start replacing coal-generated electricity. That's obviously not Wind's fault, but it's an ugly byproduct of wind's usage in TX.

Plus, Tudor Pickering Holt says that Wind is a dead duck without subsidies (from an investment standpoint).

[Katy Lied]

Is the government still keeping wind farms afloat with subsidies?

I love wind, but it has a few flaws (at least in Texas).

1. When it is most needed (summer), the wind doesn't blow nearly as hard as it needs to (you can lump this with general lack of predictability of wind).

2. When wind is needed/used (i.e. the shortage in TX this winter...wind was sort of the unsung hero of ERCOT), it is not displacing dirtier, less efficient, older coal-generated electricity. Instead, its displacing natural gas plants. If we want to be serious about energy indepependence, we have to start getting real about using natural gas (a cleaner fuel in carbon, Nox and Sox emissions) to produce a lion's share of our electricity. Wind, IMO, is stifling the use of NG, to an extent, and needs to start replacing coal-generated electricity. That's obviously not Wind's fault, but it's an ugly byproduct of wind's usage in TX.

Plus, Tudor Pickering Holt says that Wind is a dead duck without subsidies (from an investment standpoint).

Your point #1 is why wind is not base load energy. Just the cream. And absolutely inefficient to produce without subsidies.

Everything I've seen is that the move is from coal to natural gas. They're not building coal plants anymore (like nuclear) because you can't site them.

Here's the energy production for Texas in 2008, in trillions of Btus:

Coal: 515
Nat Gas: 8190
Crude oil: 2593
Nuke: 425

Got these figures from the feds (EIA) and maybe they're old, but looks like gas is king in Texas. Landpoke can expound some more.

[Katy Lied]

TVA's budget for energy efficiency measures in the next few years is $1 billion. Locally, Rocky Mountain Power's budget for EE is $20 Million.

That's a lot of moolah for a very small market where everyone knows each other.

If I were in insulation, I'd put together a blow-and-go crew, hire a passel of returned missionaries and go door to door selling "free" insulation.

[Moliere]

Is the government still keeping wind farms afloat with subsidies?

I love wind, but it has a few flaws (at least in Texas).

1. When it is most needed (summer), the wind doesn't blow nearly as hard as it needs to (you can lump this with general lack of predictability of wind).

2. When wind is needed/used (i.e. the shortage in TX this winter...wind was sort of the unsung hero of ERCOT), it is not displacing dirtier, less efficient, older coal-generated electricity. Instead, its displacing natural gas plants. If we want to be serious about energy indepependence, we have to start getting real about using natural gas (a cleaner fuel in carbon, Nox and Sox emissions) to produce a lion's share of our electricity. Wind, IMO, is stifling the use of NG, to an extent, and needs to start replacing coal-generated electricity. That's obviously not Wind's fault, but it's an ugly byproduct of wind's usage in TX.

Plus, Tudor Pickering Holt says that Wind is a dead duck without subsidies (from an investment standpoint).

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showth...highlight=wind

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showth...highlight=wind

[Green Monstah]

Your point #1 is why wind is not base load energy. Just the cream. And absolutely inefficient to produce without subsidies.

Everything I've seen is that the move is from coal to natural gas. They're not building coal plants anymore (like nuclear) because you can't site them.

Here's the energy production for Texas in 2008, in trillions of Btus:

Coal: 515
Nat Gas: 8190
Crude oil: 2593
Nuke: 425

Got these figures from the feds (EIA) and maybe they're old, but looks like gas is king in Texas. Landpoke can expound some more.

Interestingly, they're trying to build a coal plant in Texas right now (which makes no sense to me).