The Public Utilities Commission yesterday finally approved the 155-megawatt Tatanka Ridge Wind Project in Deuel County. Avangrid, which is part of Spanish Iberdrola, says it can have its 56 new turbines up and spinning next year.
Commissioner Chris Nelson proposed a number of amendments to the Tatanka Ridge application to protect whooping cranes, address concerns about ice thrown from whirling blades, and require Avangrid/Iberdrola to pay $5,000 per year per turbine for at least ten years into an escrow account to cover decommissioning costs. That’s $2.8 million for the whole farm over the first decade. In May, Avangrid/Iberdrola said it expects Tatanka Ridge to generate power for forty years, after which they’ll either upgrade the facility or remove and scrap the turbines.
One more condition Commissioner Nelson should have included in his amendments was an I-29 charging station for electric cars. The new wind farm will be just down the road from the lovely Hidewood rest area that the state closed in 2017. We could run maybe a mile of cable from the westernmost turbine to Exit 157, put up plug-ins for Teslas and Prii, and offer free power for visiting travelers!
Take one last look at your beautiful hills, people…..
So where are they sending the power?
I am guessing that it is going to Minnesota.
The electricity generated is sold into the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator (MITSO), which delivers electric power to a very large region of the upper midwestern U.S. and Canada.
For the new 56 turbines: The electricity will sell 98 megawatts to Google and the remainder to Dairyland Power Cooperative.
According to one of Cory’s links, there are presently 2 contracts for the power. One is Google, and the other is the Dairyland Power Cooperative.
Kudos to the PUC for making sure that decommissioning costs are being addressed.
Technically it is not a 155 MW wind farm. If the capacity factor is 35%, then on average you are producing 54 MW. Google can probably find a use in cooling computer servers or running the servers whenever the power is available….those needs can be different than the typical supply-demand issues.
It looks like Dairyland is part of the CapX2020 initiative, so they can send energy elsewhere through those affiliated transmission projects.
According to the CapX2020 web site, http://www.capx2020.com/, they should be done with their CapX2050 study by 2020.
Zuckerberg is doing crypto currency so Google will soon match his game. Crypto needs crypto mining and crypto mining needs enormous amounts of energy, in places with very cold temperatures to cool the servers. No jobs, just utilization of empty buildings.
Back in the day, a “cool server” was somebody who brought you an extra iced tea to your table without being asked to do so.
This is good for SD. Great to have some good news. Wind turbines appeal to my artistic sense. I like the clean lines, the gentle curves. I also find the swooping, swooshing sound soothing. Has anyone ever been harmed by “ice throw?” Is that really a thing?
Advertising pros are thinking about ways to help everyone understand the dire state of the climate. They offer suggestions for new terminology. “Global Meltdown” is my preference. Click here to see the others.
is.gd/FG9bQm
The many things you get from these beautiful towers are inspiring to us all. I still think the old windmills of the prairie that were used to pump water for drinking water for all livestock including people, are beautiful and meaningful. We are showing that we now understand the implications of the dangers of fossil fuels and what profits that can be gleaned from addressing the issue.
Moar of these please. The wind is our friend, lets embrace it even further.
A smaller one for home use with a battery system that would simply allow you to pull less from the grid (instead of shoving excess onto the grid) would be more attractive.
The problem at the moment is that to make them more efficient, you have to build them much larger and taller. In addition, the turbines do not start a-turnin when you turn on the television. And we are not going to stop watching television, so we burn natural gas.
If you cannot send the energy elsewhere (i.e. you kick the intermittency can down the road), and you cannot store the energy, then there should be a dedicated use. Otherwise, the other option is to shut the turbines down when there is no demand.
Here is a big upcoming problem that needs to be solved.
Today 10% of the world’s electricity consumption is used in cooling air.
https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/global-cooling-prize-india/index.html
That demand is going to increase for three reasons. First, the third world will be installing more air conditioners (it is one of our modern conveniences that they want). Second, there will simply be more people in what we currently call the third world. Third, the future will be warmer, which will demand more cooling.
Hopefully some of that demand will be reduced by efficiency, but the total is going to be larger nevertheless.
Why? The number of room air conditioner units is forecasted to almost quadruple. So what is 10% of our electricity today could surpass than 40% of our electricity use today without any changes in efficiency.
Thus directing the excess energy from renewables into cooling or heating would be a better use than just blindly pushing it onto the grid.
Here is the scope of the problem….only 7% of homes in India have air conditioning…and that number will go up. China has room to grow, as only 60% of their homes have air conditioning. 16% of homes in Mexico have air conditioning.
Here is a big upcoming problem that needs to be solved.
CNN reports that today 10% of the world’s electricity consumption is used in cooling air.
That demand is going to increase for three reasons. First, the third world will be installing more air conditioners (it is one of our modern conveniences that they want). Second, there will simply be more people in what we currently call the third world. Third, the future will be warmer, which will demand more cooling.
Hopefully some of that demand will be reduced by efficiency, but the total is going to be larger nevertheless.
Why? The number of room air conditioner units is forecasted to almost quadruple by 2050. So what is 10% of our electricity today could surpass than 40% of our electricity use today without any changes in efficiency.
Thus directing the excess energy from renewables into cooling or heating would be a better use than just blindly pushing it onto the grid.
Here is the scope of the problem….only 7% of homes in India have air conditioning…and that number will go up. China has room to grow, as only 60% of their homes have air conditioning. 16% of homes in Mexico have air conditioning.
10% of the problem in America is too many refrigerants in the super markets. We don’t need to keep milk cold if we do like Europe does. We don’t need to keep eggs cold if we do like Europe does. Go into a big market store and you need a coat in the summer because of the coolers…that also give off a lot of heat that needs to be cooled as well.
If we insulated our homes and installed new windows and doors, that would make a huge difference as well.
Mr. jerry, half of the problems in the US are related to trying to be like those sniveling Europeans in League of Nations. Besides, we like cold beer and eggs that have not gone balut on us.
Very good, grudzie. Few in SD and few outside the profession know “balut “.
I have a cousin who was an exec at General Mills and was sent to England for two years to promote eating breakfast cereal. Her biggest hurdle was getting people to put warm milk on Cheerios.
Remember when we didn’t have air conditioning? It was a big deal when my Dad’s office got central air in the mid-1950s. We didn’t install a window air conditioner to cool the kitchen until the early 1960s, and I was out of the house before they hooked up a unit to central air. Most cars didn’t have air conditioning until the mid-1960s.
East River gets hot, humid days in summer. Sure, it was not Louisiana hot and humid, but it was very unpleasant maybe 15-20 days during the summer. When we didn’t have air conditioning we sweated it out, had water pistol fights, turned on the sprinklers, drank lemonade, went swimming. We survived. We grilled hot dogs or hamburgers or chicken so we didn’t heat up the house with cooking. People sat outside in the shade and breeze and opened up at night to cool things down. People used fans. Kids would sleep outside in a tent in the backyard.
People survived the heat in the Midwest, but I don’t think the South would be very comfortable without air conditioning. In fact, that’s what led to the boom in the South after the 1960s.
“would be more attractive.”
That’s a matter of taste, Mac.
I agreed with Jerry about the old, steel windmills. It’s the history they represent that I see when I see them that’s beautiful. ❤
I often see small buildings with spiral wind turbines on the roof. I like those too, aesthetically speaking.
Bad news:
“Global governments plan to produce 120 percent more fossil fuels by 2030, an amount that would torpedo already pledged efforts to rein in global warming, research groups and the United Nations say.”
National Geographic
Good news:
“An Israeli company is turning trash into pseudo-plastic pellets that can be made into everyday items like trays and packing crates. UBQ is diverting household refuse destined for long-term burial, reducing methane gas and creating new life for hard-to-recycle plastic, the Washington Post reports.”
National Geographic
Oh, you can have all the cold beer you want…Besides, after a couple of them, you don’t really give a care if there ice cold or cool. The eggs are fresh as well and damn good. The European in us has been bred out it seems, so now all we want are kings to rule us while we wait for the next batch of them.
Well, to me they are a huge eyesore. I might see them differently if I was allowed to put up a small one and be payed the same. Fact is I can’t. Not that I couldn’t do it just as efficiently….just that I’m not allowed to.
Those of you that like giant wind turbines ought to be asking why we can’t seem to make house top solar or small wind or small hydro work here in the mid-west. Its not a question of efficiency.
At the same time we are putting up giant wind farms we are taking out municipal hydro dam’s all over Iowa. We are not developing hydro at exiting dams that could be developed. Buuttt…. we are building wind farms.
Clyde, small turbines and house top solar do work here. Lots and lots of houses and commercial buildings use them and save big $ on electric bills. The Minnesota metro has many, many flat roofed commercial buildings covered with solar panels.
Why do you say they don’t work?
Clyde, what really is an eyesore is coal dust and pollution from fossil fuel. With wind chargers, you can look the other way. With pollution, you cannot.
China is using hydro on the Mekong, and starving out the country’s below. A free flowing river is a beautiful thing, a damn is dam ugly. Carry on.
Solar works slightly better than prayer. Where the future really lies is with energy creation using neodymium magnets and small capacitors attached to pets and wildlife. Bio-energy, they say, is only limited by the ability to transport it back to a receiver hooked to the grid or to your home.
Folk’s, when I say “here” I’m talking South Dakota. See if any independent power producer can get payed the same and subsidized the same as these big wind farm’s. Last I heard, you cannot! If you put up the solar panels in Mn. a while back and needed a tax credit they might have worked. By working I mean cost to return on investment.
Free flowing rivers so that you can kayak down the muddy things and Asian carp can get upstream easily.
Donald Pay remember’s no AC as do I. The house I am living in was built in 1960 by my dad who had lived all his life without it. Lots of big window’s with deciduous trees to the south and there are very few days that AC is needed most years.
Electric power and really, all energy, needs to be higher priced.
Clyde, I remember no AC very well. Fans and judicious opening and closing of blinds and windows in the evening and morning were essential. At its worst, we retreated to the basement.
Rooftop solar and windmills work in SD as well as Minnesota to save the owner $. I think most people who install them do so with that in mind, rather than selling excess electricity.
I don’t think rooftop sources are usually intended as a $ making investment, though some do get a small payment when the power company buys juice from them. I have read that power companies are working at shrinking that amount, of course.
Debbo, if you are putting power into the grid in So Dak you are payed the so called “wholesale price”. All the power that your facility produces is required to be sold to the utility’s at that “wholesale” price while ANY power you get must be bought at retail price. Two meters….one hooked to your generator and one hooked to the grid. All the power you are allowed is that that has been metered in favor of the retailer.
A delicious meal Clyde. Let me show you how it’s done https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faZqIdGi87k
One of the problems with Americans like us is that we are too damn lazy to even think that you could have a great meal from “an invasive species”. All ya have to do is catch and cook, no big deal.
Something else, those fish you pay big money for in the markets were once “trash fish” including lobster. There are different names for them these days because we are way to squeamish to eat something that is called an Asian Carp when you can put a cooler name on it and slurp it down.
All houses should have at least an R-30 for sidewalls and at least an R-40 for the ceilings. The foundations should be insulated, waterproofed and the basement floor should also be insulated with heating strips, new insulated windows and doors. Start with that and then make sure the older homes all comply with the same.
Clyde, it’s the same in Minnesota and the utilities want to reduce the wholesale price because capitalism. The rich get richer while the rest get screwed.
Bill Gates money comes through with a solar breakthrough. All ya need is money and you can make stuff work.
“New York (CNN Business)A secretive startup backed by Bill Gates has achieved a solar breakthrough aimed at saving the planet.
Heliogen, a clean energy company that emerged from stealth mode on Tuesday, said it has discovered a way to use artificial intelligence and a field of mirrors to reflect so much sunlight that it generates extreme heat above 1,000 degrees Celsius.” https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/heliogen-solar-energy-bill-gates/index.html
Man, we could do that here in the Sunshine State to create jobs jobs jobs with clean energy in addition to our abundance of wind power. Booyah!
Jerry, if you think that wind turbines are hard on our avian friends these concentrated solar systems delivers them already cooked. Maybe we can set up a homeless community next to one to help out with the carnage.
Windows and farming pesticides kill more of our avian friends than wind turbines and solar. Right now, we send chickens to China so they can be cooked and sent back here. Using your logic, why not eliminate the trip and just cook them right here. Chickens cooking on an open fire, Jack Frost…. Hire the homeless to process the chickens and eliminate two birds with one cone. Great idea Clyde. Homeless would be able to eat and be able to advance their situation for a real home. Chickens get roasted and we save our planet!! Booyah!!
Jerry……what can I say! Lets save on Chinese cooked chickens!
Jerry,
The achievement by the Bill Gates group will need to process a lot of material to make a profit. And to process a lot of material you will need to collect a lot of photons. That will require a lot of land to collect those photons from the sun. This is where the rubber will hit the road with this technology.
Western states would therefore be better suited for the technology’s land and sun requirements, but if one must haul material over long distances to get there…by truck… that could reduce the potential carbon savings.
The project aims to reduce the carbon footprint of processes that demand energy intensity, such as manufacturing concrete. It will be more likely to be accepted by concrete manufacturers if the economic case were sound.
For example, they may trade a large upfront cost of construction for little to no fuel costs in the manufacturing that would recoup their costs in X number of years. If it generates a profit, then the carbon reduction is the icing on the cake. Sounds an awful lot like the rationale for building smaller nuclear plants.
And no, you cannot use the Bill Gates technology to instantaneously cook those chickens :^).
It would be of interest to provide the energy intensity for recycling renewables though.
REA has never made a profit, it was and still is, a social program designed to put the lights on in rural areas.
For the record, as now proven, farmers don’t need no stinkin profits as they have subsidies. Gates don’t need not stinkin profits as he has all the money.
The reason you should want to reduce subsidies is that there are other needs that require them more, so we should reduce them when we can.
Investments are OK, particularly if they generate better long-term outcomes.
Denmark’s Siemens says we can have total electric from wind by 2040. Booyah! Good that South Dakota will be a major part of it. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/science-environment-50605505/climate-defenders-taking-wind-power-to-another-level
I don’t know jerry….if you celebrate a corporation, who knows what will happen next…Cats and dogs living together in perfect harmony?
Whether the turbines are off-shore or not, the power they generate does not match demand. They do not start turning when you turn the lights on.
The total capacity, the power that is actually generated by the wind turbines, and the demand that occurs are all different at the same time. Simply building more wind turbines doesn’t change that. Better transmission, better energy storage, and secondary intermittent uses will ameliorate but not eliminate the intermittency issue. We are not doing enough of either of these today because it is simpler to burn natural gas.
This morning wind speeds were on the order of 5-10 mph. Not enough to generate electricity. Those wind turbines are sure beautiful in the early morning when they are not turning and the sun hits them….wait a minute…that is not how wind power works!
How much does it cost to turn off a wind generator and turn it back on? I don’t see why you’re trying to make this a grandiose problem. If wind is an intermittent solution, so what. I don’t burn natural gas when it’s not cold in the house, either. Oh, that’s right. Everything you post goes through a “build nuclear power plants and move toward possible nuclear winter” filter.
We are all humans, and we do not use energy just when the wind power is available. Ironically, you are using a computer right now run by electricity, and that computer is not going up and down in power to accommodate the intermittent power. That would probably be a good way to shorten the lifetime of your computer.
We are on track for emitting more carbon than today simply due to our backup use of natural gas. As we use more electricity, natural gas will increase along with that.
Let’s build more renewables. Let’s take care of the life cycle issues. And then use nuclear energy to fill in the gaps without emitting carbon. We may have to pull carbon out of the air, which will be energy intensive…so we will need nuclear for that too.
Hmmmm…..let’s check….did we have a “nuclear winter” with Chernobyl, the worst nuclear accident ever? Nope. Are we ever going to build Chernobyl-style reactors again? Nope. The U.S. never did.
Speaking of actual winter…the angle of the Sun is not as good for solar, and when it is really cold there is no wind. Coal has a problem because the stack of coal can be frozen. There are no such fuel issues over the winter for nuclear energy.
I see your nagging about building nukes as analogous to the We’re On Meth campaign. What as readers of DFP are we “humans” supposed to do about this problem that you’re beating like a rented mule? Listen to the warnings and do what? What are you, a professional in the field doing to create storage? You seem to be in a hundred times better position than we common folk to do something. Are you? Or is nagging us about it your chosen path to non-guilt?
It would be nice to toss our hat over the wall so we only have to climb over the wall to get it. If it were only that simple.
Humans are not going to stop using power whenever they want to. So I think it is self-contradictory to only rely upon renewables when we know for certain that will require carbon-based backup energy without nuclear.
We can either stop using power altogether, or generate clean power whenever we use power. I am simply in the latter camp. So let’s do what is necessary with what we have.
By the way, energy storage is beneficial for nuclear energy too. Nobody who is in favor of either renewables or nuclear energy should be against energy storage. It is simply not available in the quantities that we need.
I will be happy to let the readers of the Dakota Free Press know when I publish something with regard to solar energy or energy storage. Would that be OK with you?
OK with me? Really? It’s hard (for me) to trust that you’re working toward what’s best for “we the people”. Especially because you have an omnipresent, ulterior motive that runs contrary to the desires of the vast majority of Americans.
Most Americans want clean power and they want access to that power when it suits them, not when it suits you or the weather.
My “ulterior” motives are to generate the carbon free energy that we actually use.
And I would say also that I support health physics, which includes the safe use of radiation for beneficial purposes (like nuclear energy or radiation therapy or environmental analysis).
I’m teaching you how to be a salesman, Doc. Your product is good but your pitch is pathetic. Making people want what you want them to want requires more subtelty. When you hear the same old same old, over and over it’s turns negative pretty fast. Pump the brakes and read the room. You can change.
You have a funny way of teaching people or convincing people to your way of thinking….
The energy storage approach being investigated with nuclear power today is the production of hydrogen. Hydrogen can then be used in many different applications, from fuel cells to biofuels to other industrial applications.
Then when renewables are plentiful and nuclear-generated electricity is not needed, they can just switch off and make hydrogen.
Alas, I have neither a dog or a cat. When I did, they snuggled and played together. Face the music doc, wind is a beautiful thing when it makes you money and saves the planet and, as a plus, some turbine parts are made right here in South Dakota. Booyah!
That’s awesome. Just pay for the decommissioning, or better yet the recycling, and don’t emit carbon when wind cannot meet the demand.
Yahboo!
From Mike Allen, Axios:
Instead of renewable energy, the world needs to focus far more on cutting its use of oil, natural gas and coal to really fight climate change, writes Axios’ Amy Harder in her “Harder Line” column.
That’s the upshot of a new climate-change simulator that MIT and think tank Climate Interactive will unveil this week.
This one comes from Numlock News, Walt Hickey:
As solar energy accelerates in usage, already companies are planning for what happens when the solar cells reach the end of their usual life. It’s a long way away, but with millions of tons of photovoltaic modules getting shipped annually, it’s worth thinking about now, at the design process, to guarantee that in a few decades the panels will be highly recyclable when solar panel waste hits 90 million metric tons in 2050. Solar panels supply one percent of global electricity, but the photovoltaic cells use 40 percent of the annual tellurium supply and 15 percent of the silver supply, not to mention a decent chunk of the semiconductor-quality quartz supply. Getting all that back on the other side is important, and European manufacturers have already begun to design recycling processes. A 2008 experiment found recycled silicon saw a 50 percent decrease in energy needed to make a solar panel.
Dustin Mulvaney and Morgan D. Bazilian, Scientific American
Exactly, we should put the requisite processes in place now, and design them with the end state in mind.
With regard to cutting the use of oil….I believe efficiency is the better approach, not stopping the use of energy. We’ll see what carbon capture can do in the next 20-30 years. And displacing some fossil fuel use with electricity moving forward.
Outer space solar generators? Indeed.
“Earlier this year, a small group of spectators gathered in David Taylor Model Basin, the Navy’s cavernous indoor wave pool in Maryland, to watch something they couldn’t see. At each end of the facility there was a 13-foot pole with a small cube perched on top. A powerful infrared laser beam shot out of one of the cubes, striking an array of photovoltaic cells inside the opposite cube. To the naked eye, however, it looked like a whole lot of nothing. The only evidence that anything was happening came from a small coffee maker nearby, which was churning out “laser lattes” using only the power generated by the system.
The laser setup managed to transmit 400 watts of power—enough for several small household appliances—through hundreds of meters of air without moving any mass. The Naval Research Lab, which ran the project, hopes to use the system to send power to drones during flight. But NRL electronics engineer Paul Jaffe has his sights set on an even more ambitious problem: beaming solar power to Earth from space. For decades the idea had been reserved for The Future, but a series of technological breakthroughs and a massive new government research program suggest that faraway day may have finally arrived.” Booyah! Back to the future!!
The good news is that space is mostly empty, and if you could collect solar energy without blocking light from reaching the surface of the earth, that would be great. It would get around the issue of intermittency, as you would have 24-7 access to sunlight.
The bad news is that you have to lift a lot of mass into space. What you send up there must withstand the forces and vibrations associated with a launch. And you probably have to engineer things so that if there is a launch failure you are not distributing the heavy metals and other chemicals all over the place.
Once you get there you have to expend energy in order to achieve the right orbital mechanics and maintain alignment with the sun. And then you are exposed to the space environment (heat, cold, radiation).
So it presents a lot of interesting engineering challenges. The alternative may be to do all of the mining and manufacturing on the moon, and then beam back the energy from there, which would not be easy either.
Too much wind and solar cause a problem according to a new MIT study.
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/too-much-wind-and-solar-raises-power-system-costs-deep-decarbonization-req/568080/
“Raising the share of electricity produced by sun and wind above 40% creates at least a couple of adverse effects on the electricity system: First, more and more solar and wind production is “curtailed” — that is, the generator must be unplugged from the grid during its most productive hours because more electricity is being produced than is needed.
Second, more back-up generating capacity is needed to fill in when the wind and solar are not producing. Since that extra backup capacity is idle much of the time, it adds costs to the system. ”
So we could use batteries, but if they do not work, we will need more nuclear and carbon capture (particularly if you use more gas).
McTag … You must have missed my question the last couple times I asked it but what’s the big problem with turning off the wind and solar generators when the grid is full? We turn off the turbines in a dam and turn off the turbines in a natural gas generator when we don’t need the power. Why do you consider this a big deal? Thanks.
You mean above and beyond the additional wear and tear on the grid, and reduced stability of the grid?
I suppose that if you want to divest from fossil fuels, you will invest in renewables. Right?
Uh oh. When they are shut off, they do not return anything on your investment. Moreover, you have built up extra infrastructure that you will have to maintain and ultimately throw away because you are not recycling any of it.
So first you don’t get anything when the sun ain’t shining and the wind ain’t blowing. And when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing you must shut more of them down because of the inherent mismatch with how people use energy. The more you build past 40%, the more you have to shut down when the wind and sun are available.
By analogy, would you build a lot of homes regardless if anyone is going to live in them? If the homes get built, you still have to pay property taxes despite nobody living there. And nobody is paying any rent or anything on a mortgage.
40% or so of the total electricity market dedicated to renewables is not a terrible thing. That really isn’t a loss for renewables…that is much higher than today! The MIT study basically says that the grid can support that.
Even if we have to shut them down once in a while, we’re still energy ahead of where we’d be if we didn’t build them.
Comparing building energy producers that sit idle periodically and building energy users (unsold houses) that sit for while is a false equivalency.
Building more without considering the demand just means the intermittency gaps get bigger. And then have to burn more gas to make up the difference.
If we end up emitting more carbon from natural gas in the future as a result, then we would not be ahead of where we are with regard to carbon.
You could make the argument for reducing other emissions from coal besides carbon dioxide.
I’ll make Cory’s argument that we can find ways (like electric car refueling stations on the Interstate) to use any excess wind power. Just run an “extension cord”. Task your class to think of things that can use excess wind energy at very low cost. I’ve got one. Crypto coin mining. ( 👁️︠ ͜ʖ ︡👁️)
Dr. McT is, in the breakfast circles in which I run, considered a bit of a celebrity. He is, after all, a real Scientist, even moreso than is grudznick, and is not one of the run-of-the-mill ilk who fancy themselves to be scientists just because they somehow got a passing mark in social studies in 5th grade.
That said, tomorrow’s Opening Rant, delivered by yours truly, as usual, will be about the fallicies of wind and solar power, and how the libbies just don’t get it.
Campbell Street this week, folks. The parking is better than when the meetings are at Tally’s, and the gravy is still thick and sausage laden. I know I can’t wait and my jowls and conservative mind are salivating already.
I still like secondary heating and cooling as an option. We could use that on local roads and sidewalks to remove ice.
Having more electric cars will require additional electricity generation that does not exist today, namely to displace the energy from fossil fuels. Wind and solar will help, but electric cars will not eliminate the intermittency problem. We will just have a different intermittency problem.
For example, after you charge your car, the wind does not stop blowing. But because your car is full, it cannot take on any more charge. And if you are driving the car, it is not available for recharging to dump excess energy from renewables at all.
Overall there will be times in which electric car charging is prevalent, and times in which electric car charging is not prevalent. There will be a beneficial overlap with the available energy from renewables. However there will still be gaps.
See? There it is, and you can’t refute it. You’d almost think the two Scientists grudznick and Dr. McTaggart were working in cahoots, but no, we’ve never met.
Wind chargers for steel mills, how about that!
“Nucor is building the first wind-powered electric micro-mill for steel production in Sedalia, Mo., writes Jeffrey Tomich at E&E News. The plant will use electric arc furnaces to produce steel instead of coal-fired furnaces, which are still used in nearly a third of US steel mills.
Steel production world-wide accounts for 7% of carbon dioxide output, Tomich observes.
The new plant will employ 250 people.
Tomich notes that one report says 68% of US steel mills already use electric arc technology. That means that if you hook them up to wind or solar power plants, they would suddenly be far more earth-friendly. The American Midwest has enormous advantages in this regard, since it is the Saudi Arabia of wind.”
Hey man, do we live in the American Midwest or what? Thanks to the great folks that have approved Tatanka Ridge! Booyah! Power on!!
There is a catch. Only part of their electricity will come from the renewables that are on the grid.
They are buying wind power as a carbon offset. They are not using wind energy to directly run the plant. Carbon is being emitted….just not at the plant.
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1061552453
“The Sedalia mill will still rely on fossil from the regional Southwest Power Pool bulk power grid when it can’t draw enough energy from wind on Evergy’s system. Even then, the plant will be supplied at least partly by renewables as the power supply in SPP increasingly becomes greener”
Now if we could only get them to go nuclear, all of it would be clean.
There are two mills. You’re correct on one of them. Thanks to the vision of the builders and the end use of Tatanka Ridge!! The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind. Bob Dylan
It looks like this would be the first such mill.
I would agree that industry is a place where the intermittency is better dealt with than the grid at large. But not by offsets. It is OK to emit the carbon as long as wind energy somewhere is subsidized by the offset.
There are slovish changes in the electrical griding that needs to be resolved. Golly. Here is how you fix this. You get some real scientists, not blog trogs, to do some math. Some real math, not French math. Then, wind is proven to be a bloviating oaf unless you spend buckets of coal to fix the battery issue.
grudznick hates winds. It blows over sh!t in my garden and pisses off the people who like to look at my garden. And some of those people like hemp ** (hemp likers claim to like hemp but they wont stand up and say “I like the demon weed”.) Mr. Qualm is a lover of the demon weed without the balls to come out and say it.
The Demon Weed is bad. It is bad. And Mr. Qualm is all about the demon weed.
Wind = Demon Weed
I would like to encourage renewables to be done the right way prior to their electricity production reaching 25% of the total.
That means a combo of the following:
1. Develop direct applications for intermittent energy when there is excess to reduce curtailments and reduce overbuilding. Energy storage for electric cars is included here, as would secondary heating and cooling be included. Smart grid tech would be in here too (hey, my dishwasher is ready to run overnight).
2. When energy storage and other direct applications are not enough (which will happen a lot), generate the requisite backup energy without carbon. This includes when the timing is off between renewable energy and the actual demand, and when the bulk demand is simply greater than what is available.
2a. If you want to eliminate or reduce nuclear-generated electricity on the grid, then you should deliver carbon capture without emitting new carbon (which may include the use of nuclear as an off-grid 24-7 application, or be a dedicated application in #1 for wind or solar). Without enough batteries and secondary apps, we will burn natural gas.
3. Have recycling and waste management practices be implemented in parallel to any new construction of renewables.
The US Farmers and Ranchers Alliance has a great video right here:
https://youtu.be/LN21LAaaOks
I found it in a Politico article about how farmers in Iowa and around the country are looking more honestly and clearly at climate change.
is.gd/pmAN6y
I feel encouraged.
Tom Daschle and Tim Johnson, remember them, from before this state lost it’s mind, were pushing a “wheeling” plan for independent power producers. A “wheeling” plan has been something that independent producers have been calling for since the PURPA act of 1978. It would allow anyone to sell their electric power to whoever they chose and only pay a fee to the”grid” for transporting it. The plan went nowhere except for getting one h**l of a lot of money allotted to defeating Daschle.
Such a “wheeling” act would have caused an immediate explosion of small independent producers and, IMO, would have gone a long way towards limiting green house gas emissions.
“Wheeling” is used now between the current power monopolies to make sure they have an exclusive right to the grid and more and more control over the future of energy in this country.
Don’t know exactly how all this power transport business works but do know that giant wind farm money knows how it works. Me, all I can do is take what the power monopolies are offering.
If “wheeling” by small producers was allowed perhaps Jerry’s steel mill could source all green power all the time. When the wind wasn’t blowing perhaps the sun would be bright on roof top solar in the southwest where they were experiencing a over capacity situation. Perhaps methane digesters which would be completely capable of storing the gas to meet peak demands could go on line. Perhaps micro hydro scheme’s with storage capacity could take up slack.
If little people aren’t allowed to be in the game I guess none of those things are possible.
There are pros and cons to independent power production. I certainly would be for a more liberalized approach for renewable power production, but I got to join Black Hills Power in opposing a couple petroleum coke plants by independent producers before the Public Utilities Commission. This was about 10-15 years before the Hyperion pet coke “gorilla” project that Rounds was pushing. It wasn’t very often that big utilities and I were on the same side. PURPA has also been used to force garbage burners down the throats of communities who get to breath the toxic emissions.
Donald, you can’t blame PURPA for toxic emissions. Plenty of folks including the EPA that should have control over that.
When PURPA passed in the 70’s I figured every farm would have a small generating plant of some sort. Wind turbines which I was planning and a methane digester as well. Utility’s quickly got control over all that though.
Instead we now have no farmers with generating capacity and almost NO farmers.
Finding purchasers of the energy is a huge problem in the US. No wonder our transportation system is so antiquated with trucks and fossil fuels as a means of delivery.
China should come here and build a railway system like it’s doing around the world.
“Magno said these new trains will be deployed on the railway from Manila to Bicol region in the southern Luzon island which will significantly cut the travel time between the two areas.
“This is a very momentous occasion for us because this is where we would start the railway service and transform of the Philippine National Railways,” Magno added.
Secretary of the Department of Transportation Arthur Tugade told Xinhua that the country attaches great importance to railway development.
“Railway system will always provide a better transportation system all over the world … we are happy that there is an opportunity of cooperation like this.”
If we did this, we would then have outlets for renewable energy as well as markets for the product so we could then shutter the natural gas and coal fired turbines. Global warming is so yesterday, now we are past that, ask Australia how the heat is.
Clyde, Many of the independent producers at that time (not sure about now) were using regulatory loopholes that made them exempt from certain air quality standards, which was one reason why BHP and I were before the PUC. I had asked for an Environmental Impact Statement, which the PUC has authority to require.
Donald that may have been the case but demanding an Environmental Impact Statement should not have been something exclusive to the PUC. I was actively involved against the “Hyperion” refinery and that was the sticking point in any further action on it. No help from the state PUC or anyone else. That and, of course, they were not capable of the project and no one was interested in it otherwise. From early on in that process it appeared to me that they were only interested in getting South Dakota to do all the leg work for them so that they would then have a project they could sell.
Jerry, the documentary’s I have watched on the Chinese “Belts and Roads” projects around the globe are pretty much just a way for the Chinese to take over and control economy’s of the country’s that are the recipients. Probably a better scheme than our system of coup’s to establish “democracy”.
Clyde, I think your last paragraph is right on the money. Many of us were urging GWB to do just that after wiping out Iraq. Darth Cheney wanted nothing to do with that, fearing it would get in the way of his greed.
Numlock News by Walt Hickey notes this, for all the mining fans out there:
Following a dam disaster in Brazil that killed over 240 people, the Church of England demanded data from mining companies it invested in to disclose the state of their tailings dams. That’s the earthworks that are used to hold mining waste, and of the 726 mining companies queried over half declined to respond. That’s concerning because the mining companies that did respond paint a tenuous picture: looking at 89 of those mining companies, they have 1,700 dams holding mine waste worldwide, of which 687 are classified as high risk.
Moira Warburton, Sam Hart, Júlia Ledur, Ernest Scheyder and Ally J. Levine, Reuters
Found this from circa 2012 regarding the use of renewable energy at mine sites. I haven’t checked to see if anything came to fruition. I would think that (a.) the mining area would be used as a location for renewable energy, and/or (b.) they use the renewable energy sited there for various mining or reclamation efforts.
https://semspub.epa.gov/work/11/176031.pdf
But renewable energy itself will have mining requirements. While we would not be mining coal, we would be mining lots of other things.
https://earthworks.org/media-releases/report-clean-energy-must-not-rely-on-dirty-mining/
“Under a 100 percent renewable energy scenario, metal requirements could rise dramatically, requiring new primary and recycled sources.
Clean technologies rely on a variety of minerals, principally cobalt, nickel, lithium, copper, aluminum, silver and rare earths.
Cobalt, lithium and rare earths are the metals of most concern for increasing clean tech demand and supply risks.
Batteries for electric vehicles are the most significant driver of accelerated minerals demand.”
New report raises questions about storing nuke waste underground. New Uranium compound temporarily forms and could contaminate groundwater.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/20/new-form-of-uranium-found-that-could-affect-nuclear-waste-disposal-plans
Disturbing if true.
Gee mike, if there were only this thing called science that could prevent the compounds from forming in the first place, if not isolate the waste to begin with. But let’s just throw up our hands instead. Apparently science cannot be used to solve problems. Science only works for renewables. Science had absolutely nothing to do with identifying the compounds so that they are known before long-term storage.
After all, besides investigating better site selection, better site preparation, and better barriers, it is not like we couldn’t reclaim more of the uranium. No, let us not consume it in a reactor to have even less uranium in the final waste product. That wouldn’t help solve this problem at all. No sir.
It makes you wonder what other non-uranium chemistries are currently occurring due to our waste management practices with renewables at the end of their life cycles. Those wastes are not being isolated and not being recycled…..but rest easy….nobody here is disturbed about that.
Those problems are occurring….just that nobody will bother to complain about it. Out of sight, out of mind. Sort of like mining issues with rare earths to supply our wind turbines. The wind is free, but what is required to convert the wind into electricity is not free.
Doc, your sarcasm is terribly misplaced. Did you see my moniker on the link I posted? Did I venture any scientific opinion one way or another? I just found the article, read it and dropped it here for you, and others, to read or not.
I was not aware alleged scientists jump to conclusions so easily. As of your last comment to me, you are no longer on my imaginary Xmas list. Take that, fella!
Renewables at high noon from 10 paces. I’ll be Mike’s second. You better get one for yourself, Mac.
No, it was in the right place…the comment appeared right after yours.
So how is the commentary about being “disturbing” not have anything to do with your opinion? You just got a Zonk #LetsMakeADeal.
Moreover, you don’t get to prevent solutions from happening, and then complain about how terrible the nuclear waste issue is….because you keep the solutions from being implemented or the problem solving from occurring.
If we do not recycle spent fuel to reduce the waste, the other option is to consume more of it in the reactor prior to its removal and disposal.
With regard to the life cycle issues for renewables, it is like you want Christmas dinner, but do not care where the food comes from, and you do not want to do any clean-up after the meal. So I hope you and Debbo have a good dinner :^).
My second will be Cheese.
Debbo, you just can’t beat Mac and Cheese…..
Doc, you read too much into my disturbing comment. You are way off in Johnny Troll nut land and need to lighten up on whatever you are inhaling.
Clever Mac. That’s a good one.
Debbo,
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year :^).
I would hope that everyone here would agree with the sentiment that renewables should do better than coal with regard to waste management and recycling practices.
Nuclear must account for all of its waste. Technically coal is downcycling about 50% of its fly ash into other products.
It would be nice if renewables were to isolate, recycle, or downcycle 100% of its waste, but you cannot get to 100% until you reach 50%.
https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2019/03/27/company-expands-wind-turbine-recycling-operation/
Above is a company trying to both recycle and downcycle wind turbine blades. It isn’t easy because of the composite nature with many materials and the chemicals that are required. And yes, they will require a permit regarding their emissions into the air as a result.
“Over the past decade, advances in composite materials have allowed the construction of enormous turbine blades. Some are now longer than the wingspan of a Boeing 747. As blades have increased, so have the costs to transport them. When wind farms need to replace aging blades, it is now often cheaper to leave them lying on the ground.
Such waste is vexing to advocates of green technology, and it is not restricted to wind power. Distributed power and microgrids rely on batteries that are difficult to dispose of. Solar farms use panels that are difficult, if not impossible to recycle.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/custom-media/pictet/breathing-new-life-into-renewable-energy/
NREL wants the re-use of these items to be integrated into the design from the get-go.
Driving Miller to Mnnpls for “Jazz” at the State theatre in the 90s, it seemed just into Minnesota the wind farms were legion.
Doc-“prevent solutions from happening, and then complain about how terrible the nuclear waste issue is….” Isn’t that essentially what you have been suggesting complaining about recycling wind farms for the last few years here? Rare earth mining ect. 1872 mining regulation in this country is no different than the Chinese “raping” Papa New Guinea and filling the Bismarck sea with tailings.
Its like idiot in chief trump complaining that wind power kills birds while his deregulated DOI, EPA and FWS ect are leading to legion bird kills, I read just today. Remember idiot trump pulled out of the Paris climate agreement, soon to be for real. Leadership without vision Doc, is not leadership. I’d wager failure to wage a recycling plastics agenda is much more detrimental to our planet than recycled wind farms.
I used to hike daily under wind farms on the Big Island for a few years, never saw a dead bird, still looked like wilderness at Kamehameha’s birthplace. Never noticed the ocean soaking up excess heat from non-fossil fuel power. Leaders take global warming seriously.
“The demand is going to remain for the development of oil and gas for the next 30 to 40 years,” said Kara Moriarty, president of Alaska Oil and Gas Association. “The demand isn’t going to go away. It’s without a doubt, right or wrong, the basis of Alaska’s economy.”
Scientists project that the world would have to cut its carbon emissions 45% by 2030 to stand a chance of keeping total global temperatures from rising more than 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels. Already, The Post has found that roughly 10 percent of the globe has already warmed by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius).
https://www.chicagotribune.com/weather/weather-news/sns-wp-alaska-needs-oil-despite-climate-change-20191216-n7omk2jvpzdmbl3nk3vt7cxfye-story.html
Merry xmas! Will we survive if Republicans fail to convict trump? Say goodbye to your hills, wherever they are.
leslie,
I don’t disagree with building more renewables. I disagree with the notion that one can deliver the carbon-free energy we need without nuclear in the mix. We don’t have battery storage, and we don’t have carbon capture. Backing up renewables means more carbon from natural gas if we avoid nuclear, and the problem is worse if we avoid the science that builds a better reactor.
We have not been recycling renewable wastes or isolating their toxic elements or chemicals. And yet we want to push forward with “Ridiculous Speed” #Spaceballs.
Maybe the theory is that we will throw our hat over the wall and only then will we need to go get it….but we could learn the lessons of coal and implement solutions prior to the vast expansion of renewables that is forthcoming.
One option for new wind is thermoplastics and 3d-printing. But you may have to live with more, smaller turbines that can be recycled better. This could also impact the total amount of energy that wind can contribute. The composites are great at providing the light weight and high strength for large turbines, but they are absolutely terrible for recycling. The other problem is that we are really good at building large turbine blades with composites, so it is difficult to adjust course.
With regard to birds, I don’t disagree with the notion that there are bigger sources of bird kills. But as it stands now, any new growth of wind power will lead to more bird kills.
Cherokee county, iowa has its own windfarm and has partnered wiih a San Diego, Calif firm to install their turbines. 82 turbines that will generate 200 mw and the energy has been pre-sold to Google.
Tax revenues after 20 years expected to be 10 million bucks.
https://www.chronicletimes.com/story/2659462.html
https://www.nwestiowa.com/news/obrien-county-honored-for-wind-energy/article_7ed1b60c-e8a9-11ea-bd92-47cedfc0162c.html
We got a gold seal. You got a Grudzilla.
Congratulations to you sir. Thank you for reminding us of our cross to bear…I kid…or do I??
Your neighborhood does indeed have multitudes of turbines. I like the sleek look of them and that they can be farmed under.