Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
64. I'm sorry... are you saying that you think windbelts are ready for prime time?
Thu Dec 22, 2011, 08:36 PM
Dec 2011

Wasn't the first experimental installation barely a year ago?

So far you can charge consumer electronics with them... you can't run a home's A/C or cook with it.

More stupidity, MadHound Dec 2011 #1
The millions of tons of coal being burned speaks to the need. TheWraith Dec 2011 #3
Time and again, you try to paint this as a binary decision, coal or nulcear, MadHound Dec 2011 #6
Solar and wind still produce barely 2.5% of our electricity. TheWraith Dec 2011 #7
Yes, you are correct, that is the current situation. MadHound Dec 2011 #8
That is bullshit written by people that know nothing about power grids badtoworse Dec 2011 #93
Ever hear of the DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #94
Are you serious? AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #97
Speaking of that quakerboy Dec 2011 #100
You might want to check your facts... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #133
I was told quakerboy Dec 2011 #176
I know there are times where there's so much wind power coming out of the Columbia River area XemaSab Dec 2011 #177
Well, we closed our last coal plant in Washington State. AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #140
Good!> Survivoreesta Dec 2011 #109
No, we should not reject nuclear outright. Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #134
Actually, our most important goal sulphurdunn Dec 2011 #154
Texas has 10,000+ MW of wind generation right now, and that will double in five years mbperrin Dec 2011 #102
do you know how much natural gas spinning reserve nuclear needs for backup? kristopher Dec 2011 #104
Apparently you don't either. FBaggins Dec 2011 #108
260MW of on-line natural gas back-up required for each reactor. That's a lot. kristopher Dec 2011 #124
It would be... if it were true. FBaggins Dec 2011 #136
Hearsay? kristopher Dec 2011 #159
How long can the Presidio, TX battery protect the city? FBaggins Dec 2011 #106
It's good for 8 hours for the entire town. These batteries are not for momentary fluctuations. mbperrin Dec 2011 #139
Then you were stretching a great deal to call it a "city" FBaggins Dec 2011 #141
Okay, now you are being purposefully obtuse and insulting as well. 4,000 people are nothing to you? mbperrin Dec 2011 #144
No... you're changing the subject. FBaggins Dec 2011 #148
good job fascisthunter Dec 2011 #186
Bologna quakerboy Dec 2011 #105
How about scaling down the "grid," RoccoR5955 Dec 2011 #112
What about spinning reserve, bad power days etc? ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #121
The more varied inputs we bring to the grid... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #149
More varied inputs is not compatible with scaling down the grid jeff47 Dec 2011 #153
There are projects in the works to use RoccoR5955 Dec 2011 #161
You need to familiarize yourself with the way "distributed generation" works. kristopher Dec 2011 #163
Shrinking the grid is not my goal... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #169
Gee they have an 11 MW Li-ion battery at a wind farm in Hawaii jpak Dec 2011 #189
I sure hope you stick around for a long time. Your reply is just plain good! ThomWV Dec 2011 #119
You have the lesson of load following exactly backwards kristopher Dec 2011 #129
Same thing you do if a concentrating solar, geothermal, hydro source goes down. AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #143
Really? kristopher Dec 2011 #162
The Grand Coulee dam rips out about 7,000mw AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #185
Nonsense - Denmark produces 20% of electricity from wind jpak Dec 2011 #188
Denmark is a peninsula in the Baltic Sea. tabasco Dec 2011 #205
The steppes of northern China is a *hugh* wind source - China is the world leader in wind power jpak Dec 2011 #209
Actually... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #92
New Large Scale Generation could be accomplished with RoccoR5955 Dec 2011 #110
and it can NEVER be more than 2.5% jpak Dec 2011 #187
Thank you--this fake dichotomy is a continuous disinformation talking point diane in sf Dec 2011 #29
I'm hoping not to just shut down coal DissedByBush Dec 2011 #90
do you understand how dangerous nuclear is? fascisthunter Dec 2011 #123
They. stonecutter357 Dec 2011 #156
well, it goes to sow how little a conscience some really have fascisthunter Dec 2011 #167
ME stonecutter357 Dec 2011 #196
Can renewables really do the job in the northeast with the large dense cities, long winters, etc? ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #9
Umm, no MadHound Dec 2011 #17
Great Idea But, Throckmorton Dec 2011 #19
Well then, I guess we'll have to use the transmission lines that we already have MadHound Dec 2011 #22
Sorry... There isn't. FBaggins Dec 2011 #49
Really? You sure about that? MadHound Dec 2011 #55
Well then. NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #62
Absolutely sure. Yes. FBaggins Dec 2011 #63
Why does the NE need wind from the midwest? kristopher Dec 2011 #67
The wind doesn't blow every day in the NE NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #73
Yes it does. kristopher Dec 2011 #75
You're funny. NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #76
No, no, let's get to the bottom of this and see who is correct. kristopher Dec 2011 #77
Do your research - wind power potential in the NE is very good - look up the maps jpak Dec 2011 #191
Vast majority of it is offshore with markedly hight costs ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #201
Sorry - the current goal is 2000 MW of on-shore wind capacity by 2020 jpak Dec 2011 #203
That is theoritical, lets see annual yield ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #204
No - that's nameplate capacity (no "theory" involved) jpak Dec 2011 #208
Capacity != actual production ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #210
That was factored into the goal of 2000 MW - we know better up here! jpak Dec 2011 #211
You still do not understand or cannot answer the question being asked ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #212
I know all about it - sorry jpak Dec 2011 #213
Others from Maine disagree with you ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #214
They do not know what they are talking about jpak Dec 2011 #215
And wind in Maine isn't working for shit Maine_Nurse Dec 2011 #80
The problem with offshore is cost ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #116
Nonsense - electricity costs in N. ME are declining because of the Mars Hill wind farm jpak Dec 2011 #192
What about the offshore winds? n/t RoccoR5955 Dec 2011 #113
Costs are much higher for maritime installations than shore based ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #115
Yeah, BUT RoccoR5955 Dec 2011 #178
Or running a modern fossil fueled plant of some sort ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #180
Question is, will they take into account ALL costs RoccoR5955 Dec 2011 #195
Some I think would be ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #197
And why should the cost of energy... RoccoR5955 Dec 2011 #206
Because the orginization running the plant is not considered accountable for them ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #207
It doesn't. FBaggins Dec 2011 #78
No, that is the scenario you selected to make a false argument kristopher Dec 2011 #79
WHy do you even need an online forum if you make up both sides of the debate in your own head? FBaggins Dec 2011 #82
Dude, the thread is right above us!! kristopher Dec 2011 #88
Do you own stocks in nuclear? fascisthunter Dec 2011 #168
Put them down the freeway corridors--those are already ugly. diane in sf Dec 2011 #30
Bury them... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #95
No, HVDC does not "take to being buried" well jeff47 Dec 2011 #150
It is being used a lot. kristopher Dec 2011 #164
Not clear that mid west will have the renewable energy to spare. ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #23
Three states, South Dakota, Kansas and Texas, have enough wind power to power the entire country, MadHound Dec 2011 #25
Wipe out the dinosaur energy firms along with private health insurers, they all are obsolete diane in sf Dec 2011 #31
Hey Texans? For the good of the country, we're going to put 175,000 wind-powered generators in your cherokeeprogressive Dec 2011 #48
Umm, did I say anything resembling the words you put in my mouth MadHound Dec 2011 #51
You didn't say those words, no. cherokeeprogressive Dec 2011 #56
Gee, ever thought that the tech has gotten beyond wind farms. MadHound Dec 2011 #59
If the technology is so dated XemaSab Dec 2011 #61
I'm sorry... are you saying that you think windbelts are ready for prime time? FBaggins Dec 2011 #64
We've recently discovered... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #96
Actually, Texas has more wind generated electricity than any other state. It will double in 7 years. mbperrin Dec 2011 #103
So in your world the grid is made from superconductors? jeff47 Dec 2011 #126
HVDC and UHVDC... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #170
They've got wind, wave, and solar options in the NE. diane in sf Dec 2011 #21
The cost of such retrofits often exceed the value of the structures ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #32
Sorry, but watt for watt, nuclear is the most expensive form of power generation going. MadHound Dec 2011 #35
I am not supporting nuclear, just point out that the central plants of some sort will be with us ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #42
Solar shingles fail? MadHound Dec 2011 #44
There are cost, building code, and interconnection issues with them ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #101
You can't power NYC from the midwest jeff47 Dec 2011 #127
Hey, no fair using science ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #132
HVDC Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #145
Still can't get enough power for the 8M people in NYC from the midwest jeff47 Dec 2011 #146
Who rode the straw horse into the room? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #172
There was a whole posse on them ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #200
You have no idea what you are talking about. NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #33
Living in a hundred and fifty plus year old house myself, MadHound Dec 2011 #37
How do you heat and what does it cost in the winter? NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #47
I Maine they are using ceramic electric heaters that use cheap off-peak electricity to heat homes jpak Dec 2011 #194
Those old houses need to be retrofitted--and should be--that's a lot of employment opportunities. diane in sf Dec 2011 #40
You have to be joking. NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #52
Here's realistic... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #65
Loans? Heat pumps? NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #70
How much are you "dumb Swamp Yankees" paying... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #86
Not that much. jeff47 Dec 2011 #152
One person's "not that much"... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #166
Efficiency Maine retrofits older homes in Maine with effective insulation and reduces energy costs jpak Dec 2011 #193
Sometimes ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #199
No - I live there all the time jpak Dec 2011 #202
Yes they can. With tidal, and small scale hydro. n/t RoccoR5955 Dec 2011 #111
Small-scale hydro can't make enough power, and the tides don't always flow jeff47 Dec 2011 #128
Keep doubting. RoccoR5955 Dec 2011 #160
Yes it can - offshore wind potential alone = 4 TW off the East Coast jpak Dec 2011 #190
I agree, take 150 Billion from DoD budget and invest in fusion reactor technology! snooper2 Dec 2011 #151
The AP1000s are actually pretty impressive hardware. TheWraith Dec 2011 #2
They are clearly a major step forward in nuclear generators ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #5
Are these the "pebble bed" reactors I read about not long ago? n/t cherokeeprogressive Dec 2011 #50
Nope FBaggins Dec 2011 #53
Please tell me they dont store spent fuel rods above the plant. nm rhett o rick Dec 2011 #4
I thought that was done in Japan due to the lack of land ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #11
I dont think the design was specifically made for Japan. I believe there are a few rhett o rick Dec 2011 #14
As I understand it placing the storage ponds on top of the reactor vessel was a local choice ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #18
I may be wrong but I believe it is intrinsic. nm rhett o rick Dec 2011 #45
It is - for that type of reactor. FBaggins Dec 2011 #58
I am going by memory but dont agree. In the design in Japan the pools were above the reactor. rhett o rick Dec 2011 #72
Both wrong. Sorry. FBaggins Dec 2011 #81
Dont be sorry. I was wrong. The spent fuel is stored below the top of the RV. nm rhett o rick Dec 2011 #85
That is the scariest Shit i've seen. stonecutter357 Dec 2011 #198
No, that's where the water sits for the passive cooling system. nt Confusious Dec 2011 #12
What could go wrong? n/t leeroysphitz Dec 2011 #13
LOL diane in sf Dec 2011 #41
Nothing... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #66
The ecomics still don't support investing in nuclear, even with an improved design. diane in sf Dec 2011 #10
Do realize that SF can never be enegry self supporting? ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #15
All cities are part of their region. My flat is a lot more energy efficent than a typical suburban diane in sf Dec 2011 #27
At a macro level, cities plunder the surrounding areas for resources ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #36
Solar panels don't require mining? XemaSab Dec 2011 #20
Solar panels don't require mining for their continuous energy production, diane in sf Dec 2011 #24
Tell that to the people in China, dying by the thousands in "cancer villages..." Systematic Chaos Dec 2011 #28
Tell that to the Indians dying from uranium mining and the people in Appalachian coal country-- diane in sf Dec 2011 #34
Well then let's bring ALL the solar panel manufacture back here. Makes perfect sense. Systematic Chaos Dec 2011 #39
Ask the people in Chernobyl and Japan how they're coping with their "clean" invisble radioactive diane in sf Dec 2011 #43
It's better to put in newer, safer reactors Turbineguy Dec 2011 #16
We will indeed need central plants for the forseeable future ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #38
It would make sense to install newer, safer reactors... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #68
What could go wrong? FiveGoodMen Dec 2011 #26
Secretary Chu Statement on AP1000 Reactor Design Certification OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #46
all that denial and the subsequent delay makes centralized solutions more 'imperative' certainot Dec 2011 #91
Or less imperative... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #99
but they've done pretty good at preventing those solutions on large scale - when it comes to certainot Dec 2011 #107
To my knowledge, this is generally true OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #114
Solar in the southwest, particuarly California has not been fast tracked ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #117
2011 Renewable Energy Priority Projects OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #118
Bureaucratic Nonsense ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #120
I believe that one level of “Bureaucratic Nonsense” has been streamlined OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #122
The metrics do not support that conclusion ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2011 #131
Really!? OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #137
Well, "You can be sure, if it is Westinghouse." eom Purveyor Dec 2011 #54
The AP1000 is dated, archiaic technology that the nuclear industry wants... joshcryer Dec 2011 #57
Fuel is a very small proportion of the cost of nuclear power. FBaggins Dec 2011 #60
Yes, the cleanup when they break is probably the biggest expense--the Japanese accident diane in sf Dec 2011 #69
Of course it isn't. FBaggins Dec 2011 #83
As plants retire which part of the industry suffers the most? joshcryer Dec 2011 #71
How much MOX do you think is out there? FBaggins Dec 2011 #84
We have something like 5 years to start pumping out one Gen III+ nuclear plant a year... joshcryer Dec 2011 #98
What clude go worng? Octafish Dec 2011 #74
Did you notice what the Obama "insider" is saying? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #87
one of the benefits of all the global warming denial is demanding centralized high end solutions certainot Dec 2011 #89
It can never happen here. stonecutter357 Dec 2011 #125
I own stock in uranium miners Eliminator Dec 2011 #130
So it's all about whether you make a dollar? XemaSab Dec 2011 #147
As opposed to oil and coal? Eliminator Dec 2011 #157
FWIW, I'm fine with nuclear being a stepping stone to 100% renewables XemaSab Dec 2011 #158
Sure you do Eliminator Dec 2011 #165
nuclear would be great if it wasn't for a fucking nuclear catastrophe every 20 years or so... scentopine Dec 2011 #135
Yay! a2liberal Dec 2011 #138
If you're an engineer/scientist type... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #173
It is the one that is the most viable in the long term a2liberal Dec 2011 #175
30 year engineer here, family of engineers and scientists, power generation, power plant design scentopine Dec 2011 #181
I don't appreciate the implication that I'm an industry shill (n/t) a2liberal Dec 2011 #183
"irrational fear-mongering" "nuclear weapons fear-mongering" "ridiculous fears" scentopine Dec 2011 #184
Regardless of whether you think I'm wrong a2liberal Dec 2011 #216
Bull... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #182
Westinghouse? itsrobert Dec 2011 #142
I'm torn about the issue of nuclear power Politicub Dec 2011 #155
You're missing the big solution... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #171
Agree completely in re: to political will being the greatest barrier Politicub Dec 2011 #174
That's a great article RoccoR5955 Dec 2011 #179
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Nuclear renaissance? US O...»Reply #64