Science A wind power stat that may surprise you.

**Rain Man** · 08-17-2012, 09:22 AM

At least, it surprised me.

The figure is a little misleading because it was apparently a short-term peak in the wee hours of the morning, but it's nonetheless quite impressive. I had no idea they were anywhere near that level, and I'm perhaps even more impressed that the annual average in Colorado (edit: from this provider, which is Colorado's largest) is 17 percent.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/06/news...dex.htm?iid=EL

Wind power hits 57% mark in Colorado
By Steve Hargreaves @CNNMoney August 6, 2012: 5:18 AM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- During the early morning hours of April 15, with a steady breeze blowing down Colorado's Front Range, the state's biggest utility set a U.S. record -- nearly 57% of the electricity being generated was coming from wind power.

As dawn came and the 1.4 million customers in Xcel Energy's service district began turning on the lights, toasters and other appliances, the utility's coal and natural gas-fired power plants ramped up production and brought wind's contribution back closer to its 2012 average of 17%.

Utilities have long been wary of placing too much finicky renewable power on the grid.

"A lot of utilities don't want to contract large amounts of wind because it's volatile," said Amy Grace, a wind analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance. "Anything over 25%, and utilities get nervous."

Colorado's overnight high-water mark demonstrated that utilities can indeed incorporate cleaner power sources into the mix.

It also provides hope that, under the right conditions and policies, wind will be able to provide a significantly larger share of the nation's power than its current 3% rate.

**Donger** · 08-17-2012, 09:27 AM

**Rain Man** · 08-17-2012, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

Meh.

If it helps, they generate the wind using giant fans that are powered by oil and coal.

**Donger** · 08-17-2012, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

If it helps, they generate the wind using giant fans that are powered by oil and coal.

While "green" alternatives to fossil fuel generation are neat, they tend to cost a lot more "green" than fossil fuel generation. It's a shame that the article doesn't mention that.

bobbymitch · 08-17-2012, 09:44 AM

I'll be impressed when all government owned and leased buildings, including the White House, are powered by off-the grid power sources that do not have to rely upon any fossil fuel back-up options. That and when all government own and leased vehicles are non-fossil fuel powered. This includes the Presidental limos.

Then and only then will I believe that wind and solar power are "the" option. I see them as decent alternatives, but not the sole options of the future as so many want to believe.

Bump · 08-17-2012, 09:49 AM

Wind Power is really really bad. /republicans

I mean, the nations top priority is keeping the mega rich, rich and getting them richer. how is wind power going to contribute to that?

Dr. Johnny Fever · 08-17-2012, 09:50 AM

I for one am surprised RM.

Dr. Johnny Fever · 08-17-2012, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bump

Wind Power is really really bad. /republicans

I mean, the nations top priority is keeping the mega rich, rich and getting them richer. how is wind power going to contribute to that?

Tax it?

**Donger** · 08-17-2012, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bump

Wind Power is really really bad. /republicans

I mean, the nations top priority is keeping the mega rich, rich and getting them richer. how is wind power going to contribute to that?

No, wind power (and other renewable sources) are just fine. They just happen to cost twice or more per kWh than does fossil-fuel generation.

Dante84 · 08-17-2012, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

No, wind power (and other renewable sources) are just fine. They just happen to cost twice or more per kWh than does fossil-fuel generation.

Infinite > Finite

Let's hope they find a way to make it affordable.

DJ's left nut · 08-17-2012, 10:09 AM

Wind power will remain throttled by battery technology. Until they can store the wind generated into batteries that don't waste 90% of it, it's just not reliable enough to use on a widespread basis. Moreover, wind turbines are ugly. And they're gigantic. And the places they tend to be the most effective are the high deserts, central plains and other places that actual people wouldn't really want to live in large amounts. This creates a massive problem with actually getting the energy to the grid and to large population centers. Our ability to 'transport' it without losing it is still pretty lousy.

Finally, environmentally they've proven to actually have some pretty dire consequences. If you watch one of those large turbines, they appear to be moving pretty slowly. The problem is that the outer tip of those rotor blades absolutely hauls ass. The average large rotor blade is about 110/120 feet long and the outer tip has to make a circle in the same amount of time that the inside does. On a pretty mild day, that's still going to be in the 4 second range. Do the math and the circumference of that circle is about 700 feet. So in a 4 seconds, the tip has to go 700 feet; or about 175 ft/second. That's roughly 120 mph.

Go ahead and count how long it takes one of those massive turbines in Western Kansas or Oklahoma or Montana to rotate when it's just going easy. 4 seconds is routine. Now you and I don't have to worry about the optical illusion there...but the birds do. The wind turbines are creating massive bird-strike problems out where they're being used because birds don't understand math. They, like us at first glance, see the center spinning fairly slowly and take a leisurely path through these wind farms...and get cut in half.

Wind energy is a farce with our present technology. If we can ever get it stored effectively or transported efficiently, we may have a start. But it's nowhere close to a viable energy source for any sort of 'urban' populace right now and too expensive to justify on more rural areas.

**Rain Man** · 08-17-2012, 10:14 AM

While I realize that the wind turbines are huge, it seems like there should be a way to screen them so that birds bounce off the chicken wire instead of going into the blender.

Braincase · 08-17-2012, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

No, wind power (and other renewable sources) are just fine. They just happen to cost twice or more per kWh than does fossil-fuel generation.

Not to mention the loss of lives due to "windlung" disease, and the ever present threat of sunmines collapsing, trapping and possibly killing the sunmine workers.

**Saul Good** · 08-17-2012, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bump

Wind Power is really really bad. /republicans

I mean, the nations top priority is keeping the mega rich, rich and getting them richer. how is wind power going to contribute to that?

So you think that Joe Sixpack could just buy a wind turbine and make a bunch of money? Who do you think owns them? (Hint: it's a big ****ing corporation)

Braincase · 08-17-2012, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saul Good

So you think that Joe Sixpack could just buy a wind turbine and make a bunch of money? Who do you think owns them? (Hint: it's a big ****ing corporation)

You can buy kits to generate your own wind power. If you are connected to the grid, you can generate enough electricity for yourself and others, and sell it back to the power company.

08-17-2012, 09:22 AM
Rain Man NFL's #1 Ermines Fan Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: My house Casino cash: $3068491 VARSITY	A wind power stat that may surprise you. At least, it surprised me. The figure is a little misleading because it was apparently a short-term peak in the wee hours of the morning, but it's nonetheless quite impressive. I had no idea they were anywhere near that level, and I'm perhaps even more impressed that the annual average in Colorado (edit: from this provider, which is Colorado's largest) is 17 percent. http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/06/news...dex.htm?iid=EL Wind power hits 57% mark in Colorado By Steve Hargreaves @CNNMoney August 6, 2012: 5:18 AM ET NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- During the early morning hours of April 15, with a steady breeze blowing down Colorado's Front Range, the state's biggest utility set a U.S. record -- nearly 57% of the electricity being generated was coming from wind power. As dawn came and the 1.4 million customers in Xcel Energy's service district began turning on the lights, toasters and other appliances, the utility's coal and natural gas-fired power plants ramped up production and brought wind's contribution back closer to its 2012 average of 17%. Utilities have long been wary of placing too much finicky renewable power on the grid. "A lot of utilities don't want to contract large amounts of wind because it's volatile," said Amy Grace, a wind analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance. "Anything over 25%, and utilities get nervous." Colorado's overnight high-water mark demonstrated that utilities can indeed incorporate cleaner power sources into the mix. It also provides hope that, under the right conditions and policies, wind will be able to provide a significantly larger share of the nation's power than its current 3% rate.
Posts: 141,636

08-17-2012, 09:27 AM	#2
Donger "Think BOOM!" Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: 33.675° N 106.475° W Casino cash: $10119900 VARSITY	Meh. __________________ I think the young people enjoy it when I "get down," verbally, don't you?
Posts: 181,332

08-17-2012, 09:44 AM	#5
bobbymitch Starter Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Midwest coast Casino cash: $9893512	I'll be impressed when all government owned and leased buildings, including the White House, are powered by off-the grid power sources that do not have to rely upon any fossil fuel back-up options. That and when all government own and leased vehicles are non-fossil fuel powered. This includes the Presidental limos. Then and only then will I believe that wind and solar power are "the" option. I see them as decent alternatives, but not the sole options of the future as so many want to believe. __________________ This is the place where brilliant minds assemble to willfully pool ignorance with questionable logic in order to reach absurd conclusions.
Posts: 655

08-17-2012, 09:49 AM	#6
Bump YOU take YOUR seat Join Date: Nov 2007 Casino cash: $1985105	Wind Power is really really bad. /republicans I mean, the nations top priority is keeping the mega rich, rich and getting them richer. how is wind power going to contribute to that? __________________
Posts: 32,394

08-17-2012, 09:50 AM	#7
Dr. Johnny Fever stax of wax Join Date: Feb 2004 Casino cash: $10004900	I for one am surprised RM. __________________ courtesy of BoneKrusher "Baseball? It's just a game. As simple as a ball and bat, yet as complex as the American spirit it symbolizes. It's a sport, a business and sometimes a religion." Ernie Harwell
Posts: 34,865

08-17-2012, 10:09 AM	#11
DJ's left nut Sauntering Vaguely Downwards Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Columbia, Mo Casino cash: $2749099	Wind power will remain throttled by battery technology. Until they can store the wind generated into batteries that don't waste 90% of it, it's just not reliable enough to use on a widespread basis. Moreover, wind turbines are ugly. And they're gigantic. And the places they tend to be the most effective are the high deserts, central plains and other places that actual people wouldn't really want to live in large amounts. This creates a massive problem with actually getting the energy to the grid and to large population centers. Our ability to 'transport' it without losing it is still pretty lousy. Finally, environmentally they've proven to actually have some pretty dire consequences. If you watch one of those large turbines, they appear to be moving pretty slowly. The problem is that the outer tip of those rotor blades absolutely hauls ass. The average large rotor blade is about 110/120 feet long and the outer tip has to make a circle in the same amount of time that the inside does. On a pretty mild day, that's still going to be in the 4 second range. Do the math and the circumference of that circle is about 700 feet. So in a 4 seconds, the tip has to go 700 feet; or about 175 ft/second. That's roughly 120 mph. Go ahead and count how long it takes one of those massive turbines in Western Kansas or Oklahoma or Montana to rotate when it's just going easy. 4 seconds is routine. Now you and I don't have to worry about the optical illusion there...but the birds do. The wind turbines are creating massive bird-strike problems out where they're being used because birds don't understand math. They, like us at first glance, see the center spinning fairly slowly and take a leisurely path through these wind farms...and get cut in half. Wind energy is a farce with our present technology. If we can ever get it stored effectively or transported efficiently, we may have a start. But it's nowhere close to a viable energy source for any sort of 'urban' populace right now and too expensive to justify on more rural areas. __________________ "If there's a god, he's laughing at us.....and our football team..." "When you look at something through rose colored glasses, all the red flags just look like flags."
Posts: 60,745

08-17-2012, 10:14 AM	#12
Rain Man NFL's #1 Ermines Fan Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: My house Casino cash: $3068491 VARSITY	While I realize that the wind turbines are huge, it seems like there should be a way to screen them so that birds bounce off the chicken wire instead of going into the blender. __________________ I'm putting random letters here as a celebration of free speech: xigrakgrah misorojeq rkemeseit.
Posts: 141,636