Hudak vs. wind power

[Guest TrueMetis]

TM, if I understand you correctly, are you saying "If you build it they will come"?

You seem to be saying that we should just go ahead and put up the wind mills, trusting that the new technologies will come along when we need them.

We have most of the technology now, if we didn't the countries that are using wind wouldn't be able to. It's just not totally mature because the technologies we use now don't require it. So yes if we build it they will come, but guess what it will come anyway because if we don't the grid keeps all of the serious flaws it has right now. Wind energy will just be an incentive to upgrade into a technology we already have to upgrade to, it will just go faster this way.

[Wild Bill]

We have most of the technology now, if we didn't the countries that are using wind wouldn't be able to. It's just not totally mature because the technologies we use now don't require it. So yes if we build it they will come, but guess what it will come anyway because if we don't the grid keeps all of the serious flaws it has right now. Wind energy will just be an incentive to upgrade into a technology we already have to upgrade to, it will just go faster this way.

Other countries have the technology? Are you comparing the problems of a grid for eastern Canada with one for a country the size of Germany? Or Grand Fenwick?

Do you have any proof that they have actually solved the problems? I keep reading reports of wind turbines being taken out of circulation because the subsidies have run out and they've turned from a profit into a draining loss!

As a techie, it sure sounds like the European situation is a politically subsidized clusterf**k!

Actually, if McGuinty is right that the cost of wind power will fall so much, why is he offering 20 year contracts in his MicroFit program? Wouldn't that make his subsidies even MORE expensive?

People in this thread are bandying solutions like compressed air that might be cost-effective and practical on the individual user scale as if they would also work as easily and as simply with systems that have to supply cities! Things just DON"T scale up that way! Once again, it sounds like a bunch of academics talking. They've read the book for the simplified examples and have no idea of the actual practical details involved.

Or, as a wise man once said, "Everything looks easy to the man who's never done it himself!"

We're not getting engineering here. We're getting faith in a dream! I'm not saying its wrong to pursue a dream but with alternative energy generation I'm seeing too many politicos who never took any science in their schooling pushing ideas that any high school physics student knows are just pipe dreams.

[dre]

People in this thread are bandying solutions like compressed air that might be cost-effective and practical on the individual user scale as if they would also work as easily and as simply with systems that have to supply cities! Things just DON"T scale up that way! Once again, it sounds like a bunch of academics talking. They've read the book for the simplified examples and have no idea of the actual practical details involved.

And by the same token, for literally every single human achievment in history there has been people like you saying it would never work, or wasnt worth trying, or would be too expensive.

They've read the book for the simplified examples and have no idea of the actual practical details involved

Thats exactly why you build pilot facilities using the technologies we have. Technologies arent developled fully in a lab. Most of the details are fleshed out during early practical applications, and if you use the fact that the details arent fully fleshed out as a reason not to attempt practical applications then youre pretty much ensuring that technology wont role out, or will role out decades later than it should have.

770 million dollars is earmarked over the next few years alone, to develope various storage alternatives, and test them in real-world applications. Canada needs to decide if we want to be part of this effort, or watch from the sidelines. If we want to be a leader, or a follower. If we want to move forward, or keep using the same tired excuses to do nothing.

We're not getting engineering here. We're getting faith in a dream! I'm not saying its wrong to pursue a dream but with alternative energy generation I'm seeing too many politicos who never took any science in their schooling pushing ideas that any high school physics student knows are just pipe dreams.

Actually we are getting lots of engineering here. Lots of smart people are working on these problems, and a number of promising technologies are being developed.

Edited June 22, 2010 by dre

[WIP]

I know htis relates to the U.S., but Ted Kennedy, hardly an ideological conservative, for years blocked turbines because he didn't want his beloved Hyannis views wrecked. I suppose support for environmentalist positions depends on whose ox is being "GORE(d)". (pun intended)

It doesn't matter whether interference comes from liberal or conservative politicians, but the difference is that a liberal has to risk angering the base when acting against renewable energy strategies, whereas the right denies the climate is changing, that human activity can affect climate, and that oil is the magic elixir of life. Therefore the rightwing conservative loses nothing by trashing everything that interferes with continued oil dependence.

[Wild Bill]

And by the same token, for literally every single human achievment in history there has been people like you saying it would never work, or wasnt worth trying, or would be too expensive.

Thats exactly why you build pilot facilities using the technologies we have. Technologies arent developled fully in a lab. Most of the details are fleshed out during early practical applications, and if you use the fact that the details arent fully fleshed out as a reason not to attempt practical applications then youre pretty much ensuring that technology wont role out, or will role out decades later than it should have.

770 million dollars is earmarked over the next few years alone, to develope various storage alternatives, and test them in real-world applications. Canada needs to decide if we want to be part of this effort, or watch from the sidelines. If we want to be a leader, or a follower. If we want to move forward, or keep using the same tired excuses to do nothing.

Actually we are getting lots of engineering here. Lots of smart people are working on these problems, and a number of promising technologies are being developed.

You're moving the goal posts again! The initial premise was that we should put a LOT of money into wind power RIGHT NOW, trusting that the necessary new technologies will happen precisely when we need them!

I'm not at all suggesting that we shouldn't invest in research. I'm not saying that the necessary technologies are impossible or not cost-effective! They MAY be, but until we research the issues enough we can't say for sure!

What I am saying is that we are putting the cart before the horse. The fact that Europe has had to shut down some turbines because they are not economically self-sustaining shows what can happen when you take invention for granted.

Things get invented on their own time. You can help it along by adding resources to the problem. JFK showed us that by getting America to put a man on the moon in less than 10 years! However, he didn't have astronauts sitting on a launch pad in an expensive LEM while waiting for someone to invent a powerful enough rocket and build it under them!

So yes, we can help speed up the time frame for what we need to upgrade our grids and such but that's NOT what's been happening! Everyone who has swallowed the koolaid blows any questions away with references to 'compressed air'. Except for Bonam, virtually everyone in this thread keeps ignoring the problem of having to build backup capacity for when the wind doesn't blow, in any practical sense.

Wouldn't it make a lot more economic sense to have a research program FIRST and THEN start building things?

[dre]

You're moving the goal posts again! The initial premise was that we should put a LOT of money into wind power RIGHT NOW, trusting that the necessary new technologies will happen precisely when we need them!

I'm not at all suggesting that we shouldn't invest in research. I'm not saying that the necessary technologies are impossible or not cost-effective! They MAY be, but until we research the issues enough we can't say for sure!

What I am saying is that we are putting the cart before the horse. The fact that Europe has had to shut down some turbines because they are not economically self-sustaining shows what can happen when you take invention for granted.

Things get invented on their own time. You can help it along by adding resources to the problem. JFK showed us that by getting America to put a man on the moon in less than 10 years! However, he didn't have astronauts sitting on a launch pad in an expensive LEM while waiting for someone to invent a powerful enough rocket and build it under them!

So yes, we can help speed up the time frame for what we need to upgrade our grids and such but that's NOT what's been happening! Everyone who has swallowed the koolaid blows any questions away with references to 'compressed air'. Except for Bonam, virtually everyone in this thread keeps ignoring the problem of having to build backup capacity for when the wind doesn't blow, in any practical sense.

Wouldn't it make a lot more economic sense to have a research program FIRST and THEN start building things?

Except for Bonam, virtually everyone in this thread keeps ignoring the problem of having to build backup capacity for when the wind doesn't blow, in any practical sense.

I havent ignored it. Posted on it about three or four times, and gave up about 1/2 an hour of my day to read up on the status of various efforts to solve this problem.

But you raise some valid points. Its hard for me to recommend the best course of action for Ontario because Im unaware of what assets its has at its disposable. If it has lots of hydro then you can add quite a bit of window power without adding storage, or use pumped water storage which should be a very easy and low tech solution.

Otherwise I would look at building a pilot storage facility... if they go this route I would support them getting a fair ammount of help with it from the Feds.

[bloodyminded]

Since oil is by definition not sustainable, everyone without exception must agree that at some point it will not be used.

There is great debate about the timeframe, but not that the time will come. So active engagement on figuring somehting out is rational. In fact, I would call it the (properly) conservative response.