Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Our utility has been seeing record levels of electricity use for the last couple weeks because of the high demand from the heat wave. About 10% of our nameplate generating capacity comes from wind. Guess how much wind energy we are getting today. Zero, zilch, nada, nothing! And it's been that way most of the last two weeks. Good thing we built a natural gas powered plant to back up the wind so the rate payers could pay for both the wind and the gas plants when only the gas plant was needed.

Fuck you algore. I'd like to see your fat ass live without air conditioning and electricity.

HI54UNI wrote:Our utility has been seeing record levels of electricity use for the last couple weeks because of the high demand from the heat wave. About 10% of our nameplate generating capacity comes from wind. Guess how much wind energy we are getting today. Zero, zilch, nada, nothing! And it's been that way most of the last two weeks. Good thing we built a natural gas powered plant to back up the wind so the rate payers could pay for both the wind and the gas plants when only the gas plant was needed.

Fuck you algore. I'd like to see your fat ass live without air conditioning and electricity.

That is one of the issues with renewables - lack of consistant power (whether solar or wind).
Until long-term storage capabilities are developed, this will be a major hurdle to overcome.

It does help to keep us from running out of fossil fuels - but as you said, there is a cost, that of double capacity.

Sometime down the road, you may be glad you have the wind mills, if gas supplies were disrupted.


Just build a nuclear plant and be done with it

Wind energy option is available through Rocky Mountain Power here, my office is enrolled.

Should have also put a solar farm in - gotta cover those bases.

Wedgebuster wrote:Wind energy option is available through Rocky Mountain Power here, my office is enrolled.

I've got no problem with people that want to voluntarily support renewable energy. Good for you!

dbackjon wrote:Should have also put a solar farm in - gotta cover those bases.

To get me to 5% of my capacity needs would take a shit load of land and cost about 4-5 times more than the worthless wind. But at least it would produce when we need it!

HI54UNI wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Should have also put a solar farm in - gotta cover those bases.

To get me to 5% of my capacity needs would take a shit load of land and cost about 4-5 times more than the worthless wind. But at least it would produce when we need it!

Understood. I don't support mandated large scale wind & solar power projects for this reason. I do, however, support promoting those technologies on an individual (or small scale community-based) manner. By "support", I mean tax credits to promote individual households to adopt renewable supplemental power sources such as wind or solar (my house is in good location for both and it's on the to do list of future projects) even to the point of mandating their use through carrot / stick philosophy. Fire away!

HI54UNI wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Should have also put a solar farm in - gotta cover those bases.

To get me to 5% of my capacity needs would take a **** load of land and cost about 4-5 times more than the worthless wind. But at least it would produce when we need it!

Money that could be spend finding a way to improve nuclear power use and safety.

Gil Dobie wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:
To get me to 5% of my capacity needs would take a **** load of land and cost about 4-5 times more than the worthless wind. But at least it would produce when we need it!

Money that could be spend finding a way to improve nuclear power use and safety.

Yup, agree with this. Wind and solar are nowhere near where they need to be to be more than novelty ideas at the present time, and generically throwing money into research for them won't speed up the process to make them technologically relevant. At some point we'll need to go that route and when that happens, there'll be plenty of resources devoted to that. Right now, though, we have plenty of other alternatives that are plentiful, cheaper, and much cleaner than what we've used in the past. Oh, and they work too.

GannonFan wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:
Money that could be spend finding a way to improve nuclear power use and safety.

Yup, agree with this. Wind and solar are nowhere near where they need to be to be more than novelty ideas at the present time, and generically throwing money into research for them won't speed up the process to make them technologically relevant. At some point we'll need to go that route and when that happens, there'll be plenty of resources devoted to that. Right now, though, we have plenty of other alternatives that are plentiful, cheaper, and much cleaner than what we've used in the past. Oh, and they work too.

Unfortunately, no one wants a nuclear power plant in their back yard...not even a wind farm off their coast.

Cluck U wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Yup, agree with this. Wind and solar are nowhere near where they need to be to be more than novelty ideas at the present time, and generically throwing money into research for them won't speed up the process to make them technologically relevant. At some point we'll need to go that route and when that happens, there'll be plenty of resources devoted to that. Right now, though, we have plenty of other alternatives that are plentiful, cheaper, and much cleaner than what we've used in the past. Oh, and they work too.

Unfortunately, no one wants a nuclear power plant in their back yard...not even a wind farm off their coast.

I'm downwind from Hanford and drive past a gazillion wind turbines on the way to Seattle. Neither bothers me too much. I actually think wind turbines are kind of scenic...in a way.

kalm wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
Unfortunately, no one wants a nuclear power plant in their back yard...not even a wind farm off their coast.

I'm downwind from Hanford and drive past a gazillion wind turbines on the way to Seattle. Neither bothers me too much. I actually think wind turbines are kind of scenic...in a way.

There are about 200 turbines 8-10 miles south of where I live. If I walk a block to the edge of town I can see them. From a distance they don't bother me. If you talk to the people that live near them most don't care for them. Biggest complaint is the noise. They have got better about placing them. I know a guy that has one south of his house. In the summer it is fine but in the winter when the sun is lower he gets shadow flicker from the blades. He says on a sunny winter afternoon he has to close his living room curtains because the flicker drives him crazy when he's trying to watch football.

Appaholic wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:
To get me to 5% of my capacity needs would take a shit load of land and cost about 4-5 times more than the worthless wind. But at least it would produce when we need it!

Understood. I don't support mandated large scale wind & solar power projects for this reason. I do, however, support promoting those technologies on an individual (or small scale community-based) manner. By "support", I mean tax credits to promote individual households to adopt renewable supplemental power sources such as wind or solar (my house is in good location for both and it's on the to do list of future projects) even to the point of mandating their use through carrot / stick philosophy. Fire away!

Question for you and this is more directed at wind - would you be willing to pay a higher rate for your supplemental energy from the power company to provide power when the wind isn't blowing? I'll give you an example - retail rates are 8 cents per kwh. Customer installs a wind turbine. The turbine works best at night or off peak when wholesale power rates for the power company are low - say 2-3 cents. During a day like yesterday wholesale rates might be 8-10-12-15 cents per kwh and the wind wasn't blowing so the customer is getting their power for 8 cents per kwh but it might be costing the company 12 cents per kwh. Is that fair to the other customers of the utility? They subsidize the guy with the renewables through a tax credit and they subsidize his electric use too? To a lot of people the power company is the bad guy because they don't want to do that.

Solar is different because at least it should be producing during peak usage hours.

HI54UNI wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
Understood. I don't support mandated large scale wind & solar power projects for this reason. I do, however, support promoting those technologies on an individual (or small scale community-based) manner. By "support", I mean tax credits to promote individual households to adopt renewable supplemental power sources such as wind or solar (my house is in good location for both and it's on the to do list of future projects) even to the point of mandating their use through carrot / stick philosophy. Fire away!

Question for you and this is more directed at wind - would you be willing to pay a higher rate for your supplemental energy from the power company to provide power when the wind isn't blowing? I'll give you an example - retail rates are 8 cents per kwh. Customer installs a wind turbine. The turbine works best at night or off peak when wholesale power rates for the power company are low - say 2-3 cents. During a day like yesterday wholesale rates might be 8-10-12-15 cents per kwh and the wind wasn't blowing so the customer is getting their power for 8 cents per kwh but it might be costing the company 12 cents per kwh. Is that fair to the other customers of the utility? They subsidize the guy with the renewables through a tax credit and they subsidize his electric use too? To a lot of people the power company is the bad guy because they don't want to do that.

Solar is different because at least it should be producing during peak usage hours.

I think that's reasonable & fair. And all the more reason for people to use multiple sources (solar) to avoid those situations if that's a possibility in your area. But then again, I also think childless couples should not have to pay same tax rate when they have no children in public schools, so I realize my logic is not universally shared by the public....

I'm still trying to figure out why people actually live in Iowa..?





I couldn't resist

Chizzang wrote:I'm still trying to figure out why people actually live in Iowa..?





I couldn't resist

An elitist will never understand.

Chizzang wrote:I'm still trying to figure out why people actually live in Iowa..?





I couldn't resist

Because in Iowa there are very few trees so there are fewer pinko-commie, tree hugging, Obama blowing liberals around.............

pantherclaw wrote:

Chizzang wrote:I'm still trying to figure out why people actually live in Iowa..?





I couldn't resist

Because in Iowa there are very few trees so there are fewer pinko-commie, tree hugging, Obama blowing liberals around.............

Too bad it went blue in 2008...

Just exactly the reaction I was looking for... (thank you)

Wedgebuster wrote:Wind energy option is available through Rocky Mountain Power here, my office is enrolled.

We should enroll CS with all the fvcking hot air here.

All the bitchin on this board. Pacific gas & electric customers are being forced to move to 30%+ renewables in the not too distant future by CA law. Fairly certain that atom splitting is not allowed in this goal. Or new dams.

Looks like my 30¢ /kw electricity will soon be a fond memory like kegs of beer for $75.

sent from my Samsung Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk for one percenters

Trapped in CA wrote:All the bitchin on this board. Pacific gas & electric customers are being forced to move to 30%+ renewables in the not too distant future by CA law. Fairly certain that atom splitting is not allowed in this goal. Or new dams.

Looks like my 30¢ /kw electricity will soon be a fond memory like kegs of beer for $75.

sent from my Samsung Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk for one percenters

Would you like these rates better?

Residential
First 800 kWh's: $0.054 per kWh
Over 800 kWh's: $0.043 per kWh
Meter Charge: $10.75 per month

Energy Cost Adjustment
An Energy Cost Adjustment (ECA) will be calculated monthly on all energy usage (kWh's) for all customer classes. The ECA is based on a rolling 12-month average of our cost for purchased power.

7/13/12 to 8/14/12 ECA = $0.00771

F you. We have a $6.8 billion high-speed rail train (electric) that runs 130 miles from Bakersfield to Madera. Essentially the same as a train that runs from the Quad cities to Cedar Falls Iowa with similar populations.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it .:'(

sent from my Samsung Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk for one percenters

BTW when I say we have high speed rail, of course I am talking about 2025.

sent from my Samsung Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk for one percenters

Chizzang wrote:Just exactly the reaction I was looking for... (thank you)