Windmills and energy input

Larry Jaques wrote:


I'm going to guess that maybe President Carter, who was trained in nuclear technology, maybe he knew something that you and I didn't?
http://www.kndo.com/Global/story.asp?S –69111&nav=menu484_2_10
Hanford Toxic Burial Ground Cleaned Up Near the Columbia River
HANFORD, Wash-- One of the most hazardous Hanford burial grounds along the Columbia River has been cleaned up.
Cleaning up the 618-7 burial ground at Hanford was a very difficult process. Clean-up staff had very little records about what was underground. It was three trenches and between 1960 to 1973 the site received nuclear fuel waste.
This is part of the careful cleanup of 800 barrels of toxic waste. Hanford officials say a milestone is reached that holds true to the Tri-Party Agreement.
"We found a lot of unknowns and a lot more material than we expected. We handled that very well and completed the project on time," said Dave Brockman, Manager of the Richland Hanford Office.
Clean-up of the burial site cost more than $20 million. The Environmental Protection Agency oversaw the process and says it went smoothly.
"It's probably the most challenging waste site that they have done at Hanford to date and they've shown that they can meet this challenge and do it," said Dave Einan, EPA.
Some of the trenches contained chips of zircaloy which can easily ignite. Most of the waste came from Hanford's fabrication and research facilities. Before removal, samples needed to be tested to see what type of materials they were.
"You anticipate what's going to happen, you create a series of boundaries, and you go step by step by step by step very carefully, then stop and you go back and evaluate," said Chuck Spencer, Rresident of Washington Closure Hanford.
During excavation of the trenches, last August a small fire broke out but there was no injuries or contamination spread.
"It was a very hazardous project but we have more hazardous one's to come. We learned a lot from this now we fell we're ready to move on to a couple more," said Brockman.
The next clean up project is a site north of this burial ground and another one that's near Energy Northwest. After this site was cleaned, which took about a year, workers had removed 180-thousand tons of waste.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I put a huge amount of personal energy into windmill electrical generation between 1982 and 1984.
Your results are very dependent on the wind in your area.
The wind power available is proportional to the cube of the wind speed. If the wind is too low, you shut down. If the wind is too high, you shut down. If the wind is just right, you convert power.
The Seattle are is a terrible place for wind generation. The wind is mostly too high or too low.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip>

Ugh. I hate this giga, mega, tera business. Anyway. all of those *relationships* are accurate as I stated them, but the second and third sentences should read: " The PPL Susquehanna nuke plant is a 2.4 GW facility. The installed wind power capacity in the US is 22.0 GW -- almost ten times as much as PPL's nuke."
There. The rest of the numbers should be right.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Huntress wrote:

Itotally agree with your numnbers, thanks again.
the key word is capacity. The nuke plant can put out the capacity day after day. Thw windmills can achieve their capacity only if the weatherman lets them. :) according to power company in Wisconson that has a windfarm, the expected energy delivery from a farm is only 30 to 35 % of capacity which actually still makes its output more than the PPL plant, but then looking further into it the output comes when it's mostly not needed, at night and this fluxuation screws up the orderly flow of power in the grid.
John
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Load-leveling is a problem with wind and solar, but the people who have studied it conclude that it can supply a significant amount of power, the amount depending on how it's implemented.
And the range of those conclusions appears to be pretty wide. Without doing a real study of it, it appears to me that the small projects now in the works, which generally are aimed at 5% or so of local capacity, are no problem. Projecting into the future, they point to some systems that run pretty well at close to 20%, where there is a good grid to work with. And there is that study of the "wind belt" up the center of the US, which says that if we had real long-distance distribution and a smart grid, combined with very spread-out geographic dispersal, the system should be able to run at 50% of the system load.
And then there is pumped storage, which seems to be mostly of use in mountainous areas, where it's possible to work with a large head and fairly efficient water turbines. That changes the entire equation.
All in all, my sense of it is that it's doable in the relatively modest system percentages (maybe 5% - 20%, including solar) that are likely to happen. So they should be implemented, IMO. Wind can be installed in a minute fraction of the time it takes to build a nuke and get everything running. And that renewable capacity, however small, will be a benefit to us for a long time to come if it's economical.
None of this suggests that it's going to replace the majority of base-load capacity. For that, the best candidate looks like nuclear fission. And I think we should be going full-speed on those, too, with the first priority being the development of a universal design and a streamlined approval process. Otherwise, the up-front costs will be prohibitive, and the implementation will be unnecessarily slow.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:49:57 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"

Right, and if you put 34,000 miles of New Mexico under solar panels, one little cloud mass will black out the nation. <g>

Right. The night winds seem to be more steady and the power can be sold outside the wind farm's local area, where it's needed.

That seems awfully optimistic. ;)

Ayup. It adds millions (billions?) to the initial outlay for a mountaintop lake, pumps, motors, pipe, etc.

Plug-in, modular nukes would handle the delays, but they're not on the market yet. ;)

Hear, hear!
The first application (for a reactor) in 30 years was made and approved by the NRC in 2007. Since then, 23 apps have gone in, for a total count of 34 units. 15 of those have been approved and 3 more are under acceptance review. It's looking better!
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jlott/2009/01/10/the-problem-with-gun-locks / Oops, wrong clipboard.
Here it is: http://tinyurl.com/6je7uc
------------------------------------------- Jack Kevorkian for Congressional physician! ==========================================
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hi Wes,
Being as this is a do-it-yourself kind of newsgroup I checked out http://www.otherpower.com/otherpower_wind.shtml . It has a fair bit of information on constructing a windmill at home, including some discussion of a 2 kW unit that should, if one is connected to the grid, reduce electric bills to roughly zero. Cost of construction is variable but there will be at least a few hundred dollars in magnets even if one is able to scrounge most of the other hardware. I'd probably have had to tuck about $2-3000 into the project to get it finished.
However... there were two rather large problems for me personally in carrying out such a project, which is why I didn't go for it.
First, my location in western KY is lousy for wind power.
Second, erecting a 50 foot item in my backyard might get some notice from the neighbors.
Third, that tower would be the tallest object for at least several hundred yards around. Lightning is not your friend when it's close by...
Anyway, my two cents on the topic. I'd love to give it a shot if we lived someplace where wind was a viable option.
Best -- Terry
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wind power solutions
With the world’s ever-increasing demand of power being more than its supply, it is about time that we take concrete steps to save power. Apart from being conscious about the usage of power and water at home, one can employ pollution-free and cost-effective power solutions at our homes. Solar power solutions and wind power solutions are the two of the most efficient solutions that can replace the conventional power solutions employed at our homes.
These solutions can help you combat power outages, reduce your electricity bills, and also help the environment.
This article will explore the cost-effective wind power solution that you can employ at home.
Wind power solutions work best when the following conditions are met: • You have a house or farmhouse spread over a big area. Typically, wind power solutions are employed in areas that spread over an acre. • The average wind speed in your area is around 11 miles per hour. If you stay in a place that has little wind flow, your system will not work. Consult an expert before installing the wind power solution at home. • You need to draw water from external sources. You can install a wind power system even when you do not need to draw water from outside. However, if you need to draw water from outside on a regular basis, a wind power system offers the best solution. • Your house needs a lot of uninterrupted power supply. Combating those power outages is easy with the pollution-free wind power systems. You need no longer worry about a break in your work because of a power uncertainty.
A typical wind power system comprises of a tower and five blades to churn out wind energy. The length of the wind tower varies depending on the location of your house. You may need a longer tower if you are in low-wind zone; you can work with a shorter tower if you live by the beach. Using a wind generator, this wind energy can be converted into useful electrical energy to be employed at home for running various electrical appliances. You can even store the power generated for later use, making wind generators more efficient than convention power systems.
If you are confused with the wind power jargon, here’s a piece of information for you. The terms, wind mills, wind turbines, and wind generators are used to refer to the same machine.
Make power at home with solar and wind energy to eliminate your power bill. Get our complete guide at http://www.EarthEnergyToday.com
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You guys are going about it all wrong. You are all trying to generate electricity from wind power. Then use the electricity to drive stuff. I think that's very ineffective.
Use the wind to drive stuff directly. Like this... http://www.travelistic.com/video/show/10086/Let%27s-Go-Sailing-On-The-Columbia-River
Clean, efficient, environmentally sound.
And the girls dress a lot better!
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.