MM wrote:
>The Electric Power Industry has had 100 years of what are, in effect, >legalized monopolies put into place. Thus, in order to "de-regulate" >or at least examine how to define a more competitive marketplace in >the power and energy industries, I think you have to take into account >the sheer difficulty of changing the playing fields that involve >100-year-old monopolies. Besides being monopolistic, the coal and petroleum industries have been receiving what amounts to federal subsidies for as long as they have been in existence. These subsidies have been in the form of land grants, tax credits, protective tariffs, and direct purchases. Wind power on the other hand has become successful with minimal government assistance. While it is true that many wind projects would not have been built without the associated tax breaks, if you were to strip away the subsidies that fossil fuel receives even today, wind power would be cheaper. Even in the current disadvantaged position wind power is nearly as cheap as "traditional" energy sources. >I disagree with the idea that the only anticipateable negative enviro >consequence of wind energy is bird kills. I'd prefer to be more >cautious than that. If you develop any of these technologies (solar, >wind, whatever) to the point of providing more than 20 or 30 % of >man's power needs, then I think you might see some climate or weather >change, or who-knows-what. Best I think that we be careful. Any >really huge development of such power projects could have an effect. Actually wind has the least impact of any energy system. If you take into account the environmental impact of the manufacture of the generating equipment, wind turbines use fewer chemicals, less water and more recyclable material in the construction. Additionally, turbines create NO thermal pollution nor do they use water in the energy generation process. When a wind turbine reaches the end of its productive lifespan, it can be cut up and removed and the steel recycled leaving only a 30' diameter concrete pad. This can be abandoned, dug out and filled, or left in place and another turbine can be erected on the same site. What happens to a solar array at the end of its life? Your caution is exactly why we keep using fossil fuels. The only consequences of using wind would be less CO2, SO2 and carcinogens in the air. The biggest competitive advantage of wind is that once you pay for the equipment there are few additional costs associated with energy production (operations and maintenance, and repair). So the price per kwh of electricity can be guaranteed over the 20 year life of the turbine. >I've been thinking that if we do develop a large desert solar plant or >plants in the American Southwest and-or some large wind harvesting, >that in a way it would be like Hoover Dam. You have these vast >amounts of energy that have for Eons simply gone about their business >but which we would now "corral". The DoE estimates that the wind resources of Texas and the Dakotas would be more than enough to meet our current energy needs. But the biggest drawback to wind (and solar for that matter) is energy storage. The wind doesn't always blow, nor does the sun always shine. The only solution to this is to store the excess energy produced during low consumption periods. Currently renewables comprise only a small fraction of total energy production, so any electricity generated is dumped directly into the grid. Once renewables become a major percentage, there will be a risk of shortages when the wind stops blowing, or on cloudy days. I don't know the cost of a 1 Mw solar array, but a similarly rated turbine costs around $1 M USD; a battery or capacitor bank for storage would add significantly to that cost and erode the competitive position the renewable has. I feel that the best solution would be to have just enough dispersed wind capacity to meet our energy needs, and then use some form of on-demand power generation to manage peak periods. Initially this could be from traditional coal fired plants, but these could eventually be replaced by biogas or biofuel. >And maybe, as with Hoover, there would be very significant enviro >consequences that would have to be weighed.... not in order to dismiss >the project out of hand, but just so we know what the enviro-tradeoff >is going in. Comparing wind to hydroelectric is irrational. As we all know there are so many environmental concerns associated with damming rivers. Wind turbines, on the other hand, kill a few birds. Claiming that something needs to be studied more is exactly the kind of bureaucratic foot dragging that our "leaders" are so fond of. Humans have been using the wind as a power source since the first man put a sail on his boat. The solution to our world "energy crisis," has been blowing us in the face for millennia. -BRAH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
