Nantucket Sound wind farm

[Damocles]

Actually, its silly to think that you can by power from a wind farm 2000 miles away and that's the power that you're using. Its no different than a connected water system. Turn on the spigot and out comes water from the nearest reservoir.

The dump doesn't need the power. And its not going to, since they ship all the trash to the SEMASS plant. Again, by putting the source close to the users, efficiency is improved, waste is minimized. These lib-tards on The Cape will just have to get used to it.

*sigh*

When the reservoir is filled with water purchased and delivered from Colorado (as those in CA are, just like their power) the water they drink comes from the reservoir, the water comes from CO.

Simply, yes, it is like a reservoir, with water from many sources, when you turn on the "spigot" (flip the switch) the water flows from the reservoir, which could be water you got from nearby or just as likely the water purchased from Colorado that was put into the reservoir.

Picture the grid as the reservoir, the "water" as the power passed from grid to grid, the spigot the switch the doctor flips and your electroshock machine as the faucet. When the electricity flows through your body in an attempt to help you, it can be from anywhere, even though it comes from the "nearby reservoir"...

 

[Chapdog]

Screw them bitches. I'm glad their hypocrisy is exposed. Shove this fucking monstrosity down their throats.

See this is what i was wondering about. Is this just a fuckyou liberals move.. or is it really the start of something great in this country.

 

[DamnYankee]

*sigh*

When the reservoir is filled with water purchased and delivered from Colorado (as those in CA are, just like their power) the water they drink comes from the reservoir, the water comes from CO.

Simply, yes, it is like a reservoir, with water from many sources, when you turn on the "spigot" (flip the switch) the water flows from the reservoir, which could be water you got from nearby or just as likely the water purchased from Colorado that was put into the reservoir.

Picture the grid as the reservoir, the "water" as the power passed from grid to grid, the spigot the switch the doctor flips and your electroshock machine as the faucet. When the electricity flows through your body in an attempt to help you, it can be from anywhere, even though it comes from the "nearby reservoir"...

In this analogy (which is scientifically valid*) the electrical grid is the pipe network and the power plants are the reservoirs. You are correct that the switch is the spigot (although we should reserve the use of electo-therapy for true crazies like Watermark).

A person from Cape Cod could purchase water from Colorado but that mountain water would never make it down the 2000' long pipe. In order for the system to be usable at all, reservoirs must be spaced all along it, and the closer they are to the spigots the more efficient the system is.

Moving away from the analogy now and to reality, due to the line losses inherent in moving electricity in a loaded grid if there were no power plants between Colorado and Cape Cod most of the power would be lost and the voltage at the Cape end would be so low as to burn out all the electrical motors and electronic components, lighting that requires ballast would never turn on and a 100W incandescent bulb would light like a wax candle.


* In order for the analogy to be valid we must assume all reservoirs are at the same elevation and all spigots are at the same lower elevation.

 

[DamnYankee]

See this is what i was wondering about. Is this just a fuckyou liberals move.. or is it really the start of something great in this country.

Its both. Libtards think that they can have their cake and eat it too, and now they are getting a dose of reality.

 

[Chapdog]

Time will tell if its both or if its the start of nothing. If we are putting wind farms in Nantucket sound we should be putting them the entire stretch from texas to canada as Tboone pickens mentioned is ideal grounds.

 

[DamnYankee]

Time will tell if its both or if its the start of nothing. If we are putting wind farms in Nantucket sound we should be putting them the entire stretch from texas to canada as Tboone pickens mentioned is ideal grounds.

The problem with T Boone's plan is that there is inadequate grid connecting his proposed locations and the folks who use the electricity. He wants you and I to put up the grid for him. It makes more sense to have windmills, solar, nukes, coal and whatever type of power plants as close as possible to the end users of electricity.

 

[asaratis]

Southern Man appears to grasp the concept of transmission line losses. What's the matter with you others that can't seem to get it? Buying electricity from the grid does not mean that your joules all come from the same generator. The most efficient source of electric energy will be the nearest source of electrical energy. Put the source close to the load.

The ideal location for a wind farm is an area where the wind blows continuously. The most efficient location will be near the load. A compromise will determine the most wise decision.

 

[Damocles]

In this analogy (which is scientifically valid*) the electrical grid is the pipe network and the power plants are the reservoirs. You are correct that the switch is the spigot (although we should reserve the use of electo-therapy for true crazies like Watermark).

A person from Cape Cod could purchase water from Colorado but that mountain water would never make it down the 2000' long pipe. In order for the system to be usable at all, reservoirs must be spaced all along it, and the closer they are to the spigots the more efficient the system is.

Moving away from the analogy now and to reality, due to the line losses inherent in moving electricity in a loaded grid if there were no power plants between Colorado and Cape Cod most of the power would be lost and the voltage at the Cape end would be so low as to burn out all the electrical motors and electronic components, lighting that requires ballast would never turn on and a 100W incandescent bulb would light like a wax candle.


* In order for the analogy to be valid we must assume all reservoirs are at the same elevation and all spigots are at the same lower elevation.

No, in this analogy (yours isn't accurate) the grid is the reservoir, electricy delievered to that grid from elsewhere works in your electroshock machine just as well as electricity delievered to the grid from the nearby power source. And in order for my analogy to work we must simply assume that there is a way to deliver water as easily as to deliver electricity.

 

[Damocles]

Southern Man appears to grasp the concept of transmission line losses. What's the matter with you others that can't seem to get it? Buying electricity from the grid does not mean that your joules all come from the same generator. The most efficient source of electric energy will be the nearest source of electrical energy. Put the source close to the load.

The ideal location for a wind farm is an area where the wind blows continuously. The most efficient location will be near the load. A compromise will determine the most wise decision.

Yes, it is true that it is the "most efficient", however that has never been my point. My point is, even in Mass. there are places that people would not object to these things, why are they picking a place that is picturesque and popular? The power doesn't have to come from CO, I just know that much of the power CA uses does. It's an irrelevant distraction to start talking about it like it is impossible to deliver electricity over distances. The point is, there are places they could pick that wouldn't meet with such resistance.

 

[Onceler]

Yes, it is true that it is the "most efficient", however that has never been my point. My point is, even in Mass. there are places that people would not object to these things, why are they picking a place that is picturesque and popular? The power doesn't have to come from CO, I just know that much of the power CA uses does. It's an irrelevant distraction to start talking about it like it is impossible to deliver electricity over distances. The point is, there are places they could pick that wouldn't meet with such resistance.

Wouldn't it be barely even visible from shore, though? I'm not sure I get the aesthetic argument here. It hardly seems like it would affect the natural beauty of that area.

And I realize this is completely subjective, but I really don't think they look bad at all; they're not smokestacks. I was in Hawaii a few years back, snorkeling in a a fairly pristine area, and there were a bunch of turbines up on a hill on the nearest island. Everyone there thought they looked kinda cool, and certainly not like a blight on the landscape.

I don't know - I'm for erring on the side of reducing pollution and thereby keeping the actual ocean waters there cleaner. They can put these up everywhere as far as I'm concerned, if it moves us off of oil in any significant way.

 

[Damocles]

Wouldn't it be barely even visible from shore, though? I'm not sure I get the aesthetic argument here. It hardly seems like it would affect the natural beauty of that area.

And I realize this is completely subjective, but I really don't think they look bad at all; they're not smokestacks. I was in Hawaii a few years back, snorkeling in a a fairly pristine area, and there were a bunch of turbines up on a hill on the nearest island. Everyone there thought they looked kinda cool, and certainly not like a blight on the landscape.

I don't know - I'm for erring on the side of reducing pollution and thereby keeping the actual ocean waters there cleaner. They can put these up everywhere as far as I'm concerned, if it moves us off of oil in any significant way.

I'm not sure either to tell the truth. My question isn't due to antipathy. It is interesting to watch so many lefties who think that the world should run on their sense of self-satisfaction from saving the planet suddenly hating on windmills.

Again, my question isn't because I hate the idea. Just, "Why there?" It can't possibly be the only place that has merit and could be used to generate this electricity. It seems like they have some sick desire to have resistance, almost like some Churches and the use of persecution syndrome to get people to support them...

 

[Onceler]

I'm not sure either to tell the truth. My question isn't due to antipathy. It is interesting to watch so many lefties who think that the world should run on their sense of self-satisfaction from saving the planet suddenly hating on windmills.

Again, my question isn't because I hate the idea. Just, "Why there?" It can't possibly be the only place that has merit and could be used to generate this electricity. It seems like they have some sick desire to have resistance, almost like some Churches and the use of persecution syndrome to get people to support them...

There may be something to that; I have to read more about it. Based on what I've read, though, some seem to think it's ideal because of the constant level of wind there, which you may not get if you go inland.

I would think it would be more disruptive to the view or whatever to actually have these somewhere on Nantucket or Cape Cod; once you get into MA, you certainly diminish the wind potential.

If someone is going to preach alt energy, they shouldn't have much of an issue with this. Every major initiative for wind or any other power will likely be a balancing act between getting off oil & the interests of local residents. You can't call for wind energy & say in the same breath "as long as it's not in my backyard" (within reason, of course)....

 

[Damocles]

Wind just won't be able to do much for us, at the most it can produce about 6% of the energy we use. There are far more efficient ways to produce energy to get us off foreign oil.

Plus we wouldn't want to use all of the wind corridor in the US, it would virtually make it so that every ear of corn would have to be hand pollinated. (Corn depends on wind for pollination), as these do actually slow the wind the more of them you put up...

 

[DamnYankee]

No, in this analogy (yours isn't accurate) the grid is the reservoir, electricy delievered to that grid from elsewhere works in your electroshock machine just as well as electricity delievered to the grid from the nearby power source. And in order for my analogy to work we must simply assume that there is a way to deliver water as easily as to deliver electricity.

In other words, you know nothing about the technical aspects of delivering electricity.

 

[Damocles]

In other words, you know nothing about the technical aspects of delivering electricity.

In other words you ignore reality (the very true fact that it happens every single day) to pretend that you have a point, even when it is pointed out that your point is simply a distraction you continue.

Encumbered by idjits the rest of us continue to speak about the actual question... one that you haven't answered... "Why there as opposed to a different and less controversial placement, do they have some sick need for a fight?"

 

[DamnYankee]

Wind just won't be able to do much for us, at the most it can produce about 6% of the energy we use. There are far more efficient ways to produce energy to get us off foreign oil.

Plus we wouldn't want to use all of the wind corridor in the US, it would virtually make it so that every ear of corn would have to be hand pollinated. (Corn depends on wind for pollination), as these do actually slow the wind the more of them you put up...

I've heard the figure as high as 20%, but no matter.

Line loss can be quite large over long distances, up to 30% or so.

http://www.bsharp.org/physics/transmission

So in theory, you increase power generation with windmills by 20%, but you'd lose quite a bit of that because some Lib-Tards don't want the things in their back yards.

And that's based on the distances used now, say from Hydro and nukes in Upstate NY to downtown Manhattan. Try using windmills in Kansas to light up Cape Cod and the losses will be phenomenal.

 

[DamnYankee]

In other words you ignore reality (the very true fact that it happens every single day) to pretend that you have a point, even when it is pointed out that your point is simply a distraction you continue.

Encumbered by idjits the rest of us continue to speak about the actual question... one that you haven't answered... "Why there as opposed to a different and less controversial placement, do they have some sick need for a fight?"

Because that's where the power is used, not in Buttfuck, Kansas.

.

 

[Damocles]

.

Which again produces nothing to actually answer my question, this cannot be the only place that could produce the energy even nearby. You still haven't produced the numbers to support this as the only tenable place to possibly put these in the area you only speak of a distraction.

There is a reason that T. Boone wants to build all along the wind corridor (as I said, stupid for a different reason), it is because he can deliever energy (as well as own water rights under property he gets to purchase cheaply due to emminent domain laws) albeit with some loss just as CO already does all over this nation.

You basically ignore the meat of the question to divert to line loss because it is convenient. Ignoring the loss in conversion from DC to AC you get (far worse than line loss) when you create energy in this fashion. (Same for solar, the conversion is the largest loss.)

Reality itself argues against the inanity, TX and CO both sell electricity to CA currently and have for decades, even with line loss they still are able to make profit doing it.

 

[Canceled2]

Yes, it is true that it is the "most efficient", however that has never been my point. My point is, even in Mass. there are places that people would not object to these things, why are they picking a place that is picturesque and popular? The power doesn't have to come from CO, I just know that much of the power CA uses does. It's an irrelevant distraction to start talking about it like it is impossible to deliver electricity over distances. The point is, there are places they could pick that wouldn't meet with such resistance.

When I lived in CA we got most outside electricity from Hoover Dam. Do you mean the Colorado river and not the actual state?

found this

andfound this:

California Energy Commission (CEC) data for 2008 shows in-state generation of 208.5 billion kWh and net imports of 98 billion kWh to give total of 306.5 TWh, 14.44% of this nuclear, 18.21% coal, 45.74% natural gas, 11.0% large hydro and 10.61% other renewables.

The basic longer-term problem is that, apart from some impressive wind farms, hardly any generating capacity had been built in California in the 20 years to 2000 due to officially-indulged environmental activism, despite almost 2% annual growth in demand. Furthermore, some 80% of California's generating plants were older than 35 years (the two largest gas-fired plants were 45 years old), and less than 5000 MWe of new plant was due to come on line 2000-03. In the event some 3000 MWe of gas combined cycle plant came on line by the end of 2001 and a further 8400 MWe from then to the end of 2005.

From 2002 to 2006 'in-state' generation from coal dropped by 36% due the closure in 2005 of the Mohave plant (out of state but Californian-owned, hence deemed 'in-state'), and that from natural gas rose by 18% in line with a 26% increase in installed capacity (after dropping back to pre-2000 levels in 2002). Supply from hydro rose 59%, evidently due to seasonal factors, there being no increase in capacity.

The state has two nuclear power plants Diablo Canyon and San Onofre - with four PWR reactors totalling 4390 MWe capacity.

 

[DamnYankee]

Which again produces nothing to actually answer my question, this cannot be the only place that could produce the energy even nearby. You still haven't produced the numbers to support this as the only tenable place to possibly put these in the area you only speak of a distraction.

There is a reason that T. Boone wants to build all along the wind corridor (as I said, stupid for a different reason), it is because he can deliever energy (as well as own water rights under property he gets to purchase cheaply due to emminent domain laws) albeit with some loss just as CO already does all over this nation.

You basically ignore the meat of the question to divert to line loss because it is convenient. Ignoring the loss in conversion from DC to AC you get (far worse than line loss) when you create energy in this fashion. (Same for solar, the conversion is the largest loss.)

Reality itself argues against the inanity, TX and CO both sell electricity to CA currently and have for decades, even with line loss they still are able to make profit doing it.

Line loss is reality. When you waste 30% delivering power you burn 30% more fuel than necessary. Reduce that down to a more reasonable amount and we wouldn't need the windmills in the first place.

You obviously have never been to Cape Cod. Its heavily populated. There's an air force base that covers 30 square miles. There's a major shipping channel. Everyone and their grandmother claims some historic site or landmark. On the north shore you can stop your car and toss a rock in the ocean on either side of you. This isn't like Colorado where you have thousands of square miles with no-one around.

And all over the Cape winds are unpredictable. Sailing near shore is a challenge. You have to get out offshore to get away from all the congestion and for predictable wind power.