:::Reserved:::
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Energy Thread
Collapse
X
-
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.
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Katy Lied View PostI'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."What are you prepared to do?" - Jimmy Malone
"What choice?" - Abe Petrovsky
Comment
-
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).Jesus wants me for a sunbeam.
"Cog dis is a bitch." -James Patterson
Comment
-
Originally posted by RedSox View PostIs 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).
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.
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RedSox View PostIs 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"Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf
Comment
-
Originally posted by Katy Lied View PostYour 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.Jesus wants me for a sunbeam.
"Cog dis is a bitch." -James Patterson
Comment
Comment