Why isn't Toyota on the E85 Bandwagon?

It's great that Norway gets 99.5% of its electricity from Hydro. No one is arguing that hydro should be scrapped in favor of wind. The fact still stands, that like wind, Hydro isn't feasible everywhere. Where it is it's already in use.

I'm not sure why you keep trying to structure your arguments this way. The 3 Gorges will have a capacity of about 17GW. Thats a lot, but it's less than Germany's currently installed wind capacity (~18GW). Granted the production factor for the Dam is a lot higher than the German wind farms. On the other hand, the damn is now a stategic target of China's enemies. Their going to have to spend money to defend it. Saying that that one damn outstrippes the world's installed wind capacity is wrong by a fair margin. It'll continue to winden as well. Wind is much easier to install than hydro.

Oh, and this thread has been hopelessly derailed. :lol: It's a good discussion though. I've already learned quite a bit.

 

But Clever, the "older than I am" reference materials are irrelevant. What's relevant is modern technology, and the vastly lower costs to operate wind power. No one is arguing that 30 years ago wind power did not look viable as a replacement to coal in Minnesota. What we are arguing is that grid-attached wind power is an excellent supplement to natural gas/hydro power in Colorado, Wyoming, and other windy areas.

You continue to tout your expertise from 30 years ago, but haven't provided any evidence against modern wind power.

We have provided wind data, specifications on turbines, and generation reports from specific utilities, yet you continue to discount wind power.

The Platte River Power Authority claims that the cost to provide Wind Power has fallen more than 80% over the last 20 years. This kind of throws your 30-year-old reports out the window, doesn't it?

A bunch of amateurs on this site have delivered more hard numbers than you have.

So, I challenge you, answer the question:

What is fundamentally wrong with supplementing 10% of Colorado's Gas, Coal, and Hydro power with grid-attache, large-scale, high-efficiency Wind Power? Does it not save 10% of the fuel/ water otherwise needed? All the evidence presented thus far seems to be YES. Where is your evidence to the contrary?

Then, why couldn't that power be used to charge a plug-in hybrid?

Nate

 

Wind also makes sense in Minnesota. There are excellent wind reserves there. Currently MN (744 MW) has more installed capacity than CO (229MW). This according to the AWEA (http://www.awea.org/projects/).

It should also be noted that traditional generation consumes a lot of water. As Nate and I know, water is not in abundance here in CO. So not only will Wind power offset fossil fuel consumption but also reduce the state's water use. Traditional energy production uses half of all water consumed in the US... and that includes agriculture! Anyways, something else to keep in mind.

For those interested here's how the water consumption of different power generating methods stacks up...

http://www.awea.org/faq/water.html

 

The cost to produce electricity in a utility scale wind farm is about $0.045/kwh. Period. That's the cost. The value assigned to that electricity is a different thing entirely. The same is true for any power producer.

 

They still ony get paid the for number of kWh produced. Also, based on what you're saying adding wind electricity should always drive energy prices up because traditional fuels are all going up in price. How then can Nevada have experienced the opposite. All of the studies done in colorado showed that implementing the renewable mandate would actually lower prices by a small amount.

 

Okay, so, Clever, you are now admitting that the use of wind power displaces fuel. (Finally, we are making progress). Why can't this fuel be used to meet peak demand when the wind is not blowing? And why doesn't this give us MORE electricity?

As far as charging a PHEV, most car charging (by those who own EV's) is done at night. A typical driver unplugs in the morning, drives to work, drives home at night, plugs in, and charges up overnight. The rates already reflect a lower price for off-peak use; most EV chargers now have timers to take advantage of this. There is no reason why this can't be done for plug-in Hybrids as well.

Also, Xcel already offers a device to attach to an air conditioner to throttle peak demand mid-day. Why not have a similar device attached to the car charger to throttle demand and reduce peak load?

http://www.xcelenergy.com/XLWEB/CDA/0,3080...1_256-0,00.html

You have made a case that wind power has problems with "retail electricity value". This type of phrasiology implies that wind power's only value is in what it can be sold for, not whan it can bought for. I don't need to resell the wind power, I only need to buy some, so what does this matter?

Nate

 

What's your point about patent 4961406? Is it yours? Who is
"investment rarities"? Your blogspot link is broken; it's missing
a period. How about making those SAE papers available somewhere
so we can read them and broaden our own minds?
.
_H*

 

Okay, riddle me this: *WHY* does burn rate increase on late intake
closing? This doesn't make sense to me yet.
.
_H*

 

That's generally what happens when arrogant pricks like you make obnoxious posts that you never back up with facts. You just continually make condescending, flippant remarks about how we'd never understand this or believe that. In this entire thread you've made numerous comments that other's have contradicted with substance. If you've actually got cogent arguments let's see them. Hell, start a new thread if you want. I have no problem with contradictory evidence, the important thing is to get a better understanding of the issue at hand (or a seconday one as the case may be). So far you've been lacking in substance. What you do have a lot of is patronizing rhetoric.

Case in point.

Except that the utility industry isn't a free market. It's heavily regulated, mandated, and subsidized. The fact that the US doesn't get 100% of it's energy from coal attests to that. Since there are over 20 states with RSPs that statement is now null and void in those states. People have stood up and said, yeah, coal might be cheaper, but we don't what that nasty crap in our air. Oh, and we don't want the mountains ruined by damming up every last canyon and screwing up the mountain environment and our enjoyment of it either.

I never said there was no relationship between cost and retail value. I stated the approximate cost of wind. The retail value is what people are willing to pay for it. Those are two different things. They're related, sure. Why don't you give us an articulate explanation and back it up with FACTS. That would be capital. Then we might get somewhere. Who knows, you might get civil response and even polite questions regarding some of your points.

 

Amen.

 

My partner and I took a tour of the wind farm near Palm Springs, which we were told is the second largest in the country. It was started in the early 80's, and has been added to over the years so that now there are more than 4000 wind generators spanning the technological achievements in wind power for the twenty five years it has been in operation.

There are 11 private companies with wind generators. Their output, combined, is fed into a giant inverter/rectifier which "evens out" the electrical flow and does whatever needs to be done before it is pumped into the power grid. The rectifier also sorts out the 11 separate farms so that their owners get proper credit for the electricity they produce.

The wind farm is very reliable and the winds average 7-10 kts, 7hours a day, 365 days a years. Some seasons get more wind, but on average, the system is operating continuously.

I was impressed. The scene looks like something from a sci-fi novel. The largest generators are huge; three blades (optimum number for efficiency and balance) with a diamter of over 200 feet. Each blade weighs 12,000 lbs. so the mass in motion is awesome.

Three of the larger generators are dedicated: they pump water up from the ground and provide the electricty for electrolosis to separate hydrogen and oxygen. The oxygen is released into the atmosphere and the hydrogen is compressed for use in the city's fuel cell busses. Cool.

The solution to our energy crisis will not come from a single energy source like petroleum was; it will be lots of various things and I think we should keep open minds.

 

I saw something on the news this morning where they said that two things are working against E85. One, that the mileage is lower (duh) and two that it's more expensive than regular gasoline so most people who drive E85-capable vehicles are skipping using it because regular gasoline is cheaper :lol:

 

I predict that gasoline will always be a little cheaper because E85 is made by consuming petroleum (diesel tractor, harvester, truck; fertilizer from petroleum). They would price it lower if they could, but they can't.

Not to mention the Ogallalla Aquifer is running dry. (It's been in a "draining" status ever since we started farming in the midwest).

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazett...ss/13876631.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer

Nate

 

There are actually quite a few things emerging that will reduce the petro input quite a bit. There are a few 100 million gal/yr plants (1 here in CO) that using biogas as their primary energy souce. The biogas is derived from manure brought in from local farms. Also, there's a company that has a system that is being used by a couple of ethanol plants to produce ~800.000 gal/yr of biodiesel from the distiller's grains that are a buy product of the ethanol production process. Looks like these little systems are being tweaked to increase the amount to 1.2-15 million gal/yr. Using biomass as the primary thermal input will really knock down the petro input.

The ogalla, on the other hand, is a disturbing issue. That's the main reason we need to get away from so much corn production. It just uses too much water. Fortunately Corn isn't the answer to ethanol's problems anyways. Cellulose ethanol is a much more sustainable and scalable solution.

But Nate, maybe when you're more mature you'll understand that. :lol: :lol: :lol:

(sorry, couldn't resist.)

 

Well, tripp, I just can't believe they let idiots like you vote. (Couldn't resist either).

;-)

Nate

 

I think biomass-to-energy is never to going to work. I can't even get people to recycle aluminum cans in order to SAVE energy, how are we going to get people to recycle stuff to MAKE energy?

Nate

 

Hey Nate,

Did you ever install CAN-VIEW? I'm toying with the idea of getting one. Basically I've just got to "sack-up" and fork over the cash. Seems like it would be a fun thing to have on board.