Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

For the First Time, Wind on the Plains Supplied More Than Half Region's Power

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–66 of 66 posts

Re: For the First Time, Wind on the Plains Supplied More Than Half Region's Power

#61

Post by epistasis »

melling wrote: post #11
Animats wrote: post #8

That's because there's not much load in that area. America's best wind power belt is north from the Texas panhandle up to Canada.[1] But there are no big cities in that region. The US thus needs more long DC power lines. The technology is already in use in China. The Zhundong-Sichuan power line goes 2600km. It's a DC line at 1.1 megavolts carrying 10 gigawatts. That technology could easily carry power from the wind b…

It was also at 4:30am on a Sunday morning.

This is of course expected, and not a knock on the achievement at all. Wind is in its early days, and growing quickly. There's only so much installed capacity, so it's going to reach it's peak percentage of the energy mix when the demand is lowest. And it will only do that if its the cheapest available energy.

Also, wind tends to be higher at night-time, which makes them a good complement to solar. Getting to >50% is something that many many many people have doubted is possible at all.

Re: For the First Time, Wind on the Plains Supplied More Than Half Region's Power

#62

Post by WalterBright »

crdoconnor wrote: post #14
happosai wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The variability needs to be very high to be an effective incentive for small power uses. If price of electricity goes from 10c/kWh to $1/kWh, it won't stop you using 1kW kettle for 5min if you want tea. And if push the price high enough to be effective, it starts hurting essential electricity users. Demand adjustment is more effective for industrial users who have beancounters. Probably better to target excessive cap…

>The variability needs to be very high to be an effective incentive for small power uses. If price of electricity goes from 10c/kWh to $1/kWh, it won't stop you using 1kW kettle for 5min if you want tea. Industrial users can be persuaded to vary their usage though. A 'smart home' could also be programmed to handle variable electricity usage - e.g. load up a washing machine ready to go and let it start running when el…

That's right. It won't solve the problem, but it will substantially reduce it, as in less grid storage will need to be built.

Re: For the First Time, Wind on the Plains Supplied More Than Half Region's Power

#63

Post by kumarski »

pjc50 wrote: post #20
kumarski wrote: post #19

I quit thinking about this energy source after re-opening my chemistry book. You need ~400M-500M tons of steel to make 2-3 Terawatt Hours of Electricity Disclaimer: My family owns a steel plant, so I'm bias in that I think the carbon emissions required to produce steel wind turbines don't make sense/don't match the intention of building wind turbines.

Where does that "~400M-500M tons of steel" number come from? The turbines tend to have composite blades and steel towers. Actual studies put the amount of energy returned by wind turbines at ~18 times the energy invested: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/1863 And if not wind turbines, then what is your preferred low-carbon energy source?

You have to think bigger about materials level embodied energy.

If you go about looking at energy density without evaluating the feedstock materials and embodied energy, your maths won't achieve the desired result.

I was doing the math on the back of a napkin, but there's quite a few papers on the topic.

www.vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/15.WINDTURBINE.pdf

I might be off by 25M-50M tons, but I think the overall assertion is valid.

My belief about how to fix the problems with energy grid: http://engineersf.com/things-humanity-could-do-right-now-to-...

Any sort of libertarian or free-market approach to this problem will likely fail. This is one of those mission critically deal breakers where human behavior can't be modulated in a desired direction.

Re: For the First Time, Wind on the Plains Supplied More Than Half Region's Power

#64

Post by 6d6b73 »

trome wrote: post #56
6d6b73 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if just one of the almost 500 power plants goes into a meltdown after a disaster/asteroid strike/pandemic . How long will it take for the fuel to become harmless? 20k years?

Compare how many people are killed, let alone animals per unit of energy produced with Wind as compared to Nuclear. Wind is far more deadly to humans (from accidents) & animals than the public is lead to believe. Nuclear despite its accidents is far less lethal towards the environment around it. Wind is only a third as deadly as coal apparently, which isn't too great in my book: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca…

I don't claim that nuclear is not safe in a short term, especially when we can fully control it. But in a long term it is dangerous to the planet as a whole, not only to humanity.

Re: For the First Time, Wind on the Plains Supplied More Than Half Region's Power

#65

Post by pjc50 »

kumarski wrote: post #63
pjc50 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does that "~400M-500M tons of steel" number come from? The turbines tend to have composite blades and steel towers. Actual studies put the amount of energy returned by wind turbines at ~18 times the energy invested: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/1863 And if not wind turbines, then what is your preferred low-carbon energy source?

You have to think bigger about materials level embodied energy. If you go about looking at energy density without evaluating the feedstock materials and embodied energy, your maths won't achieve the desired result. I was doing the math on the back of a napkin, but there's quite a few papers on the topic. www.vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/15.WINDTURBINE.pdf I might be off by 25M-50M tons, but I think the overall a…

From that very paper you linked:

"the aggregate installed wind power of about 2.5 terawatts would require roughly 450 million metric tons [of steel]"

That's terawatts (nameplate power capacity) NOT terawatt-hours! A very important distinction since the steel is a onetime cost for the life of the turbine and can potentially be recycled at EOL.

Yes, you need currently available usually fossil energy to make renewable sources, including PV and nuclear. What is the alternative? Yes, embodied energy / EROEI is important, but it has to be considered fairly across all technologies. Including battery storage and nuclear plants, and the replacement of petrol vehicles with EVs.

Re: For the First Time, Wind on the Plains Supplied More Than Half Region's Power

#66

Post by toomuchtodo »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #2

Ah good, perhaps we will soon be able to dump our asinine requirements around ethanol (which, I think, only exist because of Iowa's unique position in choosing Presidential candidates.)

Only if we can get more EVs on the road to reduce petrol consumption.
Post reply on HN