How's all that alternative energy stuff work'n out for 'ya?

[Commercialfarmer]

OK so a coal fired power station is good, they take days to get up to speed or to shut down, so at times waste their energy, hence the cheaper rates at night so they are trying to avoid to much of this.

A power source from, wind, solar, bio-reactor etc in local communities reduces to losses in transmittance of power to that communitie by 10%

As fuel prices increase alternative energy generation becomes more competitive, and then cheaper.

Natural Gas powered stations are very good. They are relatively clean burning compared to many coal fired stations, and can be fired up, and shut down relatively quickly. However when they built these in the Uk they managed to burn though the North sea reserves in only a few years and now the UK imports vast quantities of fuel. Now the UK and the rest of Europe need Russian natural gas.

Is it not better to have a mix of power generation, to spend money making sure that wind, solar etc get better and not to have to buy power from Other counties?

I would have thought that anti government intervention as many of you are you would have supported the production of power on your door step so that you were less reliant on government keeping your lights and TV on for you.

Many coal, natural gas, and of course Nuclear power stations also receive government incentives to be built or decommissioned, or both.

And your full of BS. Show me your figures and I will sink your battle ship. Why is wind and solar failing? Because it requires financial incentives by the government. And even with them, they are failing. They are too expensive.

Why is oil prices becoming inflated? Because our administration won't allow drilling on Federal land. There is a reduction on Federal land by over 30%. Look at the ban in the gulf, recently in Ohio, lack of transportation by the XL pipeline, Alaska, East coast and West coast ban, ban in rocky mountains. Price of oil is artificially raised so that the others can attempt to be competitive. They still aren't.

Lack of government interference is just that- A LACK OF GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE. Means you have to follow through with what you are saying and say what you mean. Not a possibility for most that are pushing all the alternative crap when it doesn't make sense at the moment.

Some day- yes. Now- no.

Come on and please enlighten me on some actual figures of the cost of windmill production, maintenance, how much energy is being produced and then we can look at the cost. If it is so cheap and good- why is there an issue? Why wouldn't companies looking to profit be jumping on it?

Hint: it is very expensive.

 

[VanC]

I can't wait for the first fully battery powered John Deere how 'bout you guys?

I do not think we will see field going tractors for a very long time if ever just with a battery. Tractors use a lot of power,

There are electric buses and trucks that are working.

An electric fork-lift will kick the butt of a diesel or gas version.

Not really. At least not if cost is a factor. Here are some excerpts taken from a study done comparing electric and propane by LD Bailey & Associates:

LD Bailey & Associates has extensive industry experience in tangible asset management, financial analysis, business strategy development, and management technologies. LDB specializes in the areas of equipment finance, fleet maintenance and management, cost and telemetry reporting, and has experience in safety compliance. In addition, LD Bailey's staff also includes experts in load logistics and black-box telemetry systems. It is their sole purpose to find hidden dollars for clients
in the acquisition, maintenance, operation and liquidation of capital and operating assets.

There are other overhead considerations for battery use – specifically a charging bay, chargers and equipment to remove and move (3,000 lb) batteries. The overhead in this example is spread over 33 lift trucks forcing the Cost Per Hour (CPH) down to $.23 per hour (15,000 hours of useful life for each lift truck). If you had to install the same equipment for only one lift truck, it would cost approximately $1.65 per hour of operation. The important point to remember is that there is NO additional equipment to purchase for IC (Internal Combustion) trucks.

As you can see in this example, LP Gas units are considerably less expensive to own and operate. Notice that with electric trucks that you must purchase several additional "fuel tanks" (batteries) as well as pay a premium for the basic equipment ($24,000 for electric vs. $18,000 for gas). It is interesting that many would assume from conversations with those in the industry that electric trucks cost considerably less to operate and maintain. However, in this case, it doesn't appear to be true.

It was also interesting to discover that the electric "fuel" costs in this study - $1.48 per hour of run time for electricity were more than the $1.41 per hour for LP Gas. This was a surprising finding since we had heard that battery charging costs were miniscule. We believe that a more accurate explanation is that charging costs are "hidden" in facilities operating costs. When actually captured (by our method or a separate meter for the charging circuit), the "fuel" costs will reflect a surprising and more accurate amount.

The overall cost difference in this comparison was approximately $16,622 per unit
($82,742 for electric minus $66,120 for gas) or $1.11 per hour of operation during its
useful economic life (not including the battery maintenance overhead). That means for every 4 electric lift trucks, this customer could have owned and operated 5 LP Gas trucks. In our opinion and all other operating variables being equal, we think it would be a better value for this client to use LP gas trucks rather than electric.

THAT BEING SAID, we understand that there are many other mitigating circumstances
governing your decision – things like flammable conditions requiring EE equipment,
emissions issues (smell), local equipment availability, lease vs. buy strategies and so on. There are many variables to consider, but having considered them in this case, the results are compelling.

I've run gas, propane and electric forklifts at some time or another. Don't really have a preference as far as power or handling. Where I'm at now we use electric, but it's inside a warehouse so I'm guessing that's because the fumes, and the risk of fire, that would come from using gas or propane makes electric the better choice. Most of the product where I'm at is moved with electric or hand pallet jacks, the SA, or good old fashioned manpower. We don't use forklifts all the time so getting through an 8-10 hour shift on a charge isn't a problem. But if we ran another shift, or ran the forklifts constantly, we would need either more forklifts or more batteries. Both are very expensive.

 

[1wlimo]

Ok vanc I looked around for more data and yes there is a lot of different versions. I could post several links that prove the the electric truck is cheaper to run than the gas, or LPG.

There are some real flaws in the working on your example. If you have an internal combustion engine then there are substantial maintenance costs, and you need fuel storage. For propane this means at least one cage, normally two or a bulk tank on site. A bulk tank is expensive. They have not included these costs.

The electric truck is also worth a lot more at the end of the time.

There are a few things about the electric motor different to an internal combustion engine. They have high torque at low revs so allow smoother starts, and they have a far higher working life than the internal combustion engine. An electric truck with 15,000 hrs has a lot of life left in it, yes the battery may need replacing.

I should have qualified my statement to say that in their place ie warehouse, hard standing electric trucks are better than gas/LPG

Have you used a high end electric truck (48V or 80V), they are far superior to cheaper versions.

 

[1wlimo]

Why is oil prices becoming inflated? Because our administration won't allow drilling on Federal land. There is a reduction on Federal land by over 30%. Look at the ban in the gulf, recently in Ohio, lack of transportation by the XL pipeline, Alaska, East coast and West coast ban, ban in rocky mountains. Price of oil is artificially raised so that the others can attempt to be competitive. They still aren't.

Lack of government interference is just that- A LACK OF GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE. Means you have to follow through with what you are saying and say what you mean. Not a possibility for most that are pushing all the alternative crap when it doesn't make sense at the moment.

Some day- yes. Now- no.

Come on and please enlighten me on some actual figures of the cost of windmill production, maintenance, how much energy is being produced and then we can look at the cost. If it is so cheap and good- why is there an issue? Why wouldn't companies looking to profit be jumping on it?

Hint: it is very expensive.

The US has a much reduced effect on oil price now. 330 million people in the US in a world of 6 plus billion and growing. India, and China use more and more oil every day. The US foreign policy does have an effect.

Pure and simple, it gets harder and more expensive to get oil out of the ground now, and it takes more to refine it, due to the fact that we are now using lower grades of oil that we left before.

At $60 a barrel for oil, it is 30% more expensive to produce electricity from wind than fossil fuel. As the prices rise so oil double to where we are no then wind power is the same. However the market is now distorted. Governments have given subsidy for wind etc and there fore the costs of building these systems has increased. You charge more when the governments pays right.

There are also the increased cost due to all these people who do not want a wind turbine in they view so this increases costs etc.

There were people and companies building new wind turbines before the government intervention and planning to make money.

While there are idiots on both sides of the argument getting real data is very difficult, and the consumer pays.
If you were to sit down look at the alternatives and how they fit into your system I am sure you could find ways to save cash.

 

[highgrit]

I know very little, but what I do know is a gas powered golf cart is the only way to go. I have a 48v club car for hunting and it's hardly worth the effort just to be quiet and scent free.

 

[Kathie in Thorp]

I'll just jump back in here for a minute. Those wind towers and the article about them in my original post -- these are 2 miles away or 10 miles away, and there are many in between and outside my eye-view. The link sent with the first post did not come from out in cyber-space vs. my home ground. These big wind towers are all over our ridge tops here. Those that "live" here, don't much mind that the land-owners are able to get some $$ back off pretty much otherwise worthless sagebrush covered rough country. It's kind of funny that those who came who to retire and are "green" people are offended by the towers that hamper their views. And you are all right when you talk about how spendy it is to put up the big towers! I guess I understand that the wind towers are "power on demand" -- no demand, shut down the towers. What I don't understand . . . ??? How does that help the every-day person, as we fund it?

 

[Commercialfarmer]

I am easy to get along with 95% of the time, and I'm sure we could get along talking about a lot things. But when we are in the position we are, I won't back down and let a bunch of false information get passed on without saying something. Sorry, but its the least I can do.

The US has a much reduced effect on oil price now. 330 million people in the US in a world of 6 plus billion and growing. India, and China use more and more oil every day. The US foreign policy does have an effect.

Sounds scary and that is what it is intended to do. But lets look at the fact that the US is sitting on 5 x Saudi Arabia's reserves at 1.5 to 2 Trillion barrels in the shale. That is just sitting here in the US shale plays- not counting Alaska, and coastal regions. And that is just in the US. The technology will be applied world wide in similar geographical formations. Like South America for instance. Also look at all the deep water wells being drilled- except here of course.

http://northshorejournal.org/cuba-to-dr ... r-to-tread

Pure and simple, it gets harder and more expensive to get oil out of the ground now, and it takes more to refine it, due to the fact that we are now using lower grades of oil that we left before.

Wrong- it was more expensive. Technology has changed. And we have less sulfur in our petroleum product and is therefor more useful than the eastern oil with heavier sulfur content.

"Advances in thermally conductive in-situ conversion may enable shale-derived oil to be competitive with crude oil at prices below $40 per barrel." http://www.newgeography.com/content/001 ... ons-future

At $60 a barrel for oil, it is 30% more expensive to produce electricity from wind than fossil fuel. As the prices rise so oil double to where we are no then wind power is the same. However the market is now distorted. Governments have given subsidy for wind etc and there fore the costs of building these systems has increased. You charge more when the governments pays right.

Haven't seen anything anywhere with real data supporting this. You need to do more than throw percentages around that aren't attached to anything. I can tell you that 100% of what you are saying is incorrect when you research it and get of the greeny weeny websites that have an agenda.

"According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the average cost of solar power is almost four times as much as traditional coal burning electric generation." http://www.investopedia.com/financial-e ... z1orV9mWgo

"The U.S. government is attempting to jump start green energy projects through the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 by allocating $16.8 billion dollars for energy conservation, research and development. The bill includes everything from grants to tax credits to encourage green energy activity. Most projects have a long-term horizon, so results are not immediately available." That is a lot of money!

"New technology for storage and transmission make wind power cheaper than solar, but it is still 50% more expensive than coal-powered electrical plants. Offshore turbines are almost twice as expensive."

There are also the increased cost due to all these people who do not want a wind turbine in they view so this increases costs etc.

There were people and companies building new wind turbines before the government intervention and planning to make money.

Without the subsidies- you won't see anyone putting them up. Don't get me wrong- I am fine with that. Take the government money away and watch it all fall down. Because it is expensive.

While there are idiots on both sides of the argument getting real data is very difficult, and the consumer pays.
If you were to sit down look at the alternatives and how they fit into your system I am sure you could find ways to save cash.

Unfortunately, until you can provide real data- you have no valid position. It is all about trying to persuade "feelings". Until I'm proven wrong, I'll stand on my facts.

Why do you think it is so hard to get any real data to support your argument?

Again, I am not saying that I will oppose the use of alternative energy when it makes financial sense. Until then, I don't care to waste our money.

Lets not get confused it what is needed to get out of this mess- its not algae.

 

[SRBeef]

I use geothermal to heat and cool my house and it works beautifully. Payback should be over a reasonable amount of time. No fuel of any kind burned. Just uses a little electricity to run the circulation pumps and heat exchanger. Efficiency is 500% = Geo produces 5 times more energy than it uses. Pumps heat from the ground into the house during the winter and heat from the house back into the ground over the summer. And that electricity could come from wind generators. I wouldn't believe much of anything that comes from Fox "news". Extremely biased. jmho.

Jim

 

[Commercialfarmer]

Jim,

Geothermal is a great idea and if I were planing on staying in my house for a long period of time, I would go that route as well. I looked into it for the house I bought 2 years ago. It isn't pennies. And there is no way I will get the cost back out of the house unless I stay in it for a longer period of time than I plan to. Is it something that will be helpful. Absolutely- one of the best options to actually decrease use in heating/cooling of homes/buildings right now.

That being said, I'm not sure how the geothermal truck and tractor deal is going to work out for you. Good luck with that. :tiphat:

I assume you were referring to my comments coming from Fox news. Actually, if you look the facts were coming from the US Energy Information http://www.eia.gov/. I quoted other sources, because it was quicker. You may want to read a little bit on your own. I have a hard time taking News reporters words as the gospel. A journalist obtains a bachelors in communications and you start taking their word for understanding all science and economy related material? How many times have the totally screwed up agricultural stories? They aren't authorities, and they don't look for them. They look to sensationalize, and most are very skewed left.

I'm interested in watching all the coal haters try to regulate China and Russia. Oh that's right, we can't and won't. Guess who will be buying all our dirty coal? Deal is already in the works. And sure it makes sense to not drill in the gulf, but pay Brazil to do it for us. If you can't see that we are shooting ourselves in the foot on purpose, then your blind.

If you believe in global warming, you need to read more. If global warming is false, then what is the problem with coal? Nothing!

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

And if you look around there were email leaks about climatologists proving that they know it is false.

A major study recently has shown that amazingly, the major thing affecting any changes in temperature is- the sun. Solar flares, etc... Not CO2. The theory doesn't make sense.

You remember the scare that the ozone was disappearing? No one came back and stated that it was due to the normal, yearly revolution of the earth around the sun. The ozone whole (on the south pole) gets larger each year, and then shrinks back down in size depending on the position of the earth at that time of the year. No one came back on the news to report that the sky was not falling and the hole was receding. It happens every year like clockwork. Because someone finally noticed it- well the sky must be falling right? How much grant money can I get to study it?

Anyway, I will not post any further on this. It is a pet peeve of mine to try to influence political decisions by junk science, and has been for some time. I will bid you well with saving the earth from the evil cars. I am more concerned about the idiots around the world trying to start WW3.

 

[1wlimo]

Getting facts on lots of contentiousne issues is hard because the sides tend to hide things, and I have slow internet speed so it takes a long time.

Wind energy, using Uk figures as this was the easiest for me to do right now.

The mean electric price to the consumer is around a 11pence per kwh. Initial charges being 23 pence per kwh for so many hours then lower rates for more usage, or lower rates off peak.

Taking this then a small 55kwh turbine will repay the capital investment in 13 years without government or feed in tariff support. With support for feed in tariff's of 23 pence per kwh it will pay back in 5 years.

Projects of over 5MW do not receive feed in tariffs, but they may benefit from ROC's which is like carbon credit offsetting payments. These large scale projects have an individual turbine pay back of 1 to 5 years, however this does not include legal and infrastructure costs.

The cost of building and running a new coal fired power-station is around 2.5 to 4.5 pence per kwh, wind is 3 to 4 pence per kwh, and nuclear is around 7 pence per kwh.

This data is using local government figures, prices from electricity pricing data sites etc.

Wind power is not without it's problems, it needs wind and a steady consistent wind. Hence the North sea is a good place to build them, and hill tops, etc. They can produce power when the system may not need it, but if we were to use energy differently form now this would help to reduce these effects. So charging electric vehicles, cooling cold stores/freezer units, pumping water, storage heat units, etc when power production is high and not when power production drops. This smooths out the supply and use. Coal fire stations are not very good at supply as it takes them a long time to get up to speed, you have to run them and not produce power for the times that you need it, etc. The whole area of power use and generation is difficult. There is no one answer, and every location is different.

 

[highgrit]

Pumping water?? You have to be kidding, wind mills are a thing of the past as far as pumping water goes. People don't use them anymore for a reason. They cost to much and their inefficient if you have power.

 

[1wlimo]

Pumping water?? You have to be kidding, wind mills are a thing of the past as far as pumping water goes. People don't use them anymore for a reason. They cost to much and their inefficient if you have power.

I think you interpreted me incorrectly, pumping water as in water towers etc, at high electric supply, as opposed to just at night or on demand.

In effect instead of having a fixed cheap rate at night, the cheap rate would be flexible and depend on supply and production.

 

[Anonymous]

The reason we don't drill for oil in the deep water oceans close to our shores is because of people being scared of cases like the bp spill.
But it's ok for Cuba, Venezuela and brazil to drill 30 miles off the coast of key west.
Our wonderful gvt won't permit drilling, or building of new rifineries, or charge millions for a new nuke power plant, but every other country under the sky does it right off our coast.

 

[SRBeef]

Pumping water?? You have to be kidding, wind mills are a thing of the past as far as pumping water goes. People don't use them anymore for a reason. They cost to much and their inefficient if you have power.

I think you interpreted me incorrectly, pumping water as in water towers etc, at high electric supply, as opposed to just at night or on demand.

In effect instead of having a fixed cheap rate at night, the cheap rate would be flexible and depend on supply and production.

There are a lot of projects in Europe and elsewhere where they use times of excess electric generating capacity to pump water uphill to a reservoir then let it down through turbines at times of peak need. A simple way of storing energy. Let's power plants and wind generators operate more efficiently.

Commercial, almost all news outlets these days are mostly reading press releases from special interest groups rather than getting the news themselves. It's cheaper. I have seen folks use press releases that obviously had no idea what they were talking about but it fills air time at no cost to them. We all need to question about everything we read, hear or see in the media. That's healthy. Taking everything we get from the media, all media, at face value is dangerous. jmho and about all I want to say on that topic.

Geothermal is not something you want to get into unless you are planning to stay in one house for some time. But it is remarkable in how it can provide both heating and cooling for very little cost once you get it installed. Payback period is not real long but it is not cheap to put in. Good things are seldom "cheap" initially.

Jim

 

[Running Arrow Bill]

They produce about all the elec that is not produced by dams etc. using coal. The problem with the windmills is that they can't sell the power for what it takes to produce it. gs

what does it cost to produce ?
seems like it would be nothing since the wind is free ?

Several months ago I heard it cost about $100,000 just for ONE wind turbine unit. Then, there is probably annual maintenance costs by the company. Seems would take a heXX of along time to sell enough electricity to pay for one of those, not to mention a whole "flock" of those plus needed infrastructure to capture and distribute the power.

 

[backhoeboogie]

Wind power is unstable on top of that. Risky that you could trip all base units off line. Does anyone remember what happened on the East Coast a few years back?

We had this discussion some time back. ERCOT (Electric Reliability Council of Texas) will call us from time to time and ask us to reduce power and increase VARs to add stability to the grid.

As far as Geo-thermal goes, got a friend who lives on a deep lake. His lines circulate on the bottom at 45 feet down. It is in incredible savings on electricity to heat and cool that house.

I am all for not failing stupid. We can do more but what we have done so far is not near enough. Battery technology needs vast advances before cars are produced. Wind power needs to be stabilized. Solar, tides, and geo-thermal all play roles. We aint there yet.

In the mean time, natural gas cannot be used for power. They've made swiss cheese out of TX and the supply is unbelieveable and increasing. The new regulations passed make it next to impossible to use.

Oil imports were curtailed to raise the price of gas.

We have failed stupid. Knee jerk reactions.

In the mean time, we do need to improve renewable technology.

Does anyone else remember the gas shortages of the early mid 70's? They told me my children would never be able to drive cars because there would not be gas.

It is a bit too early to start the Y3K panic just yet. But who knows with this administration?

 

[lynnmcmahan]

How about that U.S. Department of Energy? Don't you like to see your tax $$$'s put to good use?????????????????
TOTAL IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[plumber_greg]

They produce about all the elec that is not produced by dams etc. using coal. The problem with the windmills is that they can't sell the power for what it takes to produce it. gs

what does it cost to produce ?
seems like it would be nothing since the wind is free ?

Several months ago I heard it cost about $100,000 just for ONE wind turbine unit. Then, there is probably annual maintenance costs by the company. Seems would take a heXX of along time to sell enough electricity to pay for one of those, not to mention a whole "flock" of those plus needed infrastructure to capture and distribute the power.

Bill, the Wind Captial Group built 110 turbines here 3 or 4 years ago. Our coop built substations and power lines to get the electricity from the windmills, the Group laid 1.4 million feet of underground elec cables to the central transformers built by my coop. Not counting the stuff the coop put in, project cost was 525 million. Don't know what indvidual turbines cost, but these were 1.5 megawatts.
Now our county assesor is fighting with Wind Captial over assesing the windmills. She wants to assaes, how do you spell that, them at 3 million apiece, they are claming the county commission told them they would asses at 1 million. Turns out it's not the commissioners place to tell anyone what something will be assesed at, Wind Captial is refusing to pay property taxes at this time until it's settled. Is ending up in court.
Mrs Mel Caranahn, former governor's wife, and her son were the leaders of Wind Capital Group. They bolted a few months ago, got their money and ran. gs

 

[backhoeboogie]

This is an ongoing issue pertaining to natural gas power plants. We're fighting it out in DC. Their proposals cannot be complied with by anyone, not even the newest combined cycle plants. Right now a stay has been issued to allow power plants to continue generating power. Here's the latest news:

CSAPR (Cross State Air Polution Rule EPA) Legal Update
The groups that are challenging CSAPR submitted their final written arguments Monday to the D.C. federal appeals court. This reply provided the petitioners' answer to the EPA's March 1 response to our initial brief.

The reply reiterated the brief's central arguments:

• The EPA has no authority to require upwind states, such as Texas, to make reductions beyond what is required under the Clean Air Act for downwind states to achieve and maintain attainment.

• It was unlawful for the EPA to rely on modeled projections of future air quality, instead of real-world monitored air quality.

• The EPA did not provide Texas and other states with sufficient notice before releasing the final rule.

• The EPA's method for determining emissions budgets was arbitrary, and the resulting budgets are riddled with errors.

The next step in the legal process will be oral arguments on April 13. They will include a summary of our brief and give the three judges who issued the stay and will decide the case an opportunity to ask questions.

While we cannot predict the outcome of the hearing or the timing of the decision, we expect a final decision on CSAPR between May and December, but most likely over the summer.

 

[Kathie in Thorp]

I don't know if any of you subscribe to RANGE magazine. Pretty conservative rag. It's published in the West . Covers teh West, the Midwest. Occasionally, materials from the SW come up. But it touches subjects that affect all of us. And it takes on liberals on most topics imporant to those of us that don't live in the city. Alternative power issues; the "Wilderness designation" issues; the wild and feral horse issues; BLM grazing issues; predator topics; cattle operations today, and historical ranch operations; true-life stories; some handy how-to ranch hints here and there. It's a very good read, and I highly recommend it, no matter where you live (we saw our first copy in Missouri). You can go to the Range website, browse articles, see what you think.

http://www.rangemagazine.com