Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Blow Out
Pine Township is looking to sell its wind turbine.
"It was a great idea that just didn't pan out," said Scott Anderson, assistant township manager.
The reason, he said: "No wind."
"We just don't have the adequate elevation in the township where it would work," supervisors Chairman Michael Dennehy said.
Again, the problem with trying to rely on alternative energy sources comes up. What happens when the wind doesn't blow, or the sun doesn't shine? I am an advocate for alternative energy sources where their use is practical, but from what I've seen of wind turbines in SW PA, they usually aren't turning. That's not to say that wind and solar don't have a role to play, but if you think they alone can supply our energy needs, well, you're nuts.
If we want to get away from the pollution caused by burning fossil fuels to generate electricity, there is only one viable option that can be applied throughout the nation. Nuclear power.
"It was a great idea that just didn't pan out," said Scott Anderson, assistant township manager.
The reason, he said: "No wind."
"We just don't have the adequate elevation in the township where it would work," supervisors Chairman Michael Dennehy said.
Again, the problem with trying to rely on alternative energy sources comes up. What happens when the wind doesn't blow, or the sun doesn't shine? I am an advocate for alternative energy sources where their use is practical, but from what I've seen of wind turbines in SW PA, they usually aren't turning. That's not to say that wind and solar don't have a role to play, but if you think they alone can supply our energy needs, well, you're nuts.
If we want to get away from the pollution caused by burning fossil fuels to generate electricity, there is only one viable option that can be applied throughout the nation. Nuclear power.
Labels: electricity
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Blow Jobs
Lsqrd, our resident electrical engineer, power generation and transmission expert, and semi-professional photographer, sends along this article detailing the problems our friends across the Atlantic are having with wind based electrical power.
The cold weather has been accompanied by high pressure and a lack of wind, which meant that only 0.2pc of a possible 5pc of the UK's energy was generated by wind turbines over the last few days.
Jeremy Nicholson, director of the Energy Intensive Users Group (EIUG), gave warning that this could turn into a crisis when the UK is reliant on 6,400 turbines accounting for a quarter of all UK electricity demand over the next 10 years.
He said the shortfall in power generated by wind during cold snaps seriously undermined the Government's pledge on Friday to build nine major new wind "super farms" by 2020.
I think that green energy sources, such as wind and solar, have a role to play in meeting electrical demand, but only as a supplemental source of power. The wind doesn't always blow, and the sun doesn't always shine. These sources of energy can take some of the demand off coal-fired generation, but they cannot replace it, and for a number of reasons that I can't explain (Lsqrd can) but do understand, you cannot easily base a distribution grid on renewable energy sources. Small scale (home or neighborhood based) solar or wind systems can help ease some pressure, but just cannot replace large power plants that are able to adjust output to meet demand.
Coal, however, is not a desirable long-term option either, given the health hazards of stack emissions (on which the Post-Gazette recently did a most illuminating series of stories) and the concern for global warming.
This leaves in my mind, but two electricity generation options for general large scale use: hydroelectricity and nuclear. Both are objectionable to many of my fellow liberals due to the immense amount of habitat destruction that hydro creates (although I'd argue that hydroelectric impoundments create as much habitat as they destroy, just a different kind of habitat) and what I consider an irrational fear of The Atom.
Nuclear power produces no stack emissions. The biggest drawback of course, is the nuclear waste produced, but as I've typed before, compare highly concentrated, relatively easily tracked spent nuclear fuel to the danger of stack emissions which go wherever the wind takes it, and the hazard posed by impoundments to contain the fly ash produced by burning coal.
Hydro is non-polluting. No stack emissions, no spent waste to contain. A big lake that can serve as a drinking water source and/or recreational uses. Its probably been explained to me before why it isn't done, but I've never understood why the multitude of flood control dams on the Allegheny, Ohio, and Monongahela rivers cannot have small hydroelectric stations associated with them.
So my friends, what would YOU rather have? I say replace the coal fired plants as they end their useful life with nuclear and hydro, but continue to use fossil fuels as a bridge technology until we're able to generate enough power with non-polluting sources. Subsidize small scale wind and solar systems to take some of the pressure off the coal and oil fired plants, and construct larger scale solar plants and wind farms where conditions warrant, such as the southwest and along ridgetops or off the coast.
Perhaps someday, controlled fusion power generation will be a reality.
The cold weather has been accompanied by high pressure and a lack of wind, which meant that only 0.2pc of a possible 5pc of the UK's energy was generated by wind turbines over the last few days.
Jeremy Nicholson, director of the Energy Intensive Users Group (EIUG), gave warning that this could turn into a crisis when the UK is reliant on 6,400 turbines accounting for a quarter of all UK electricity demand over the next 10 years.
He said the shortfall in power generated by wind during cold snaps seriously undermined the Government's pledge on Friday to build nine major new wind "super farms" by 2020.
I think that green energy sources, such as wind and solar, have a role to play in meeting electrical demand, but only as a supplemental source of power. The wind doesn't always blow, and the sun doesn't always shine. These sources of energy can take some of the demand off coal-fired generation, but they cannot replace it, and for a number of reasons that I can't explain (Lsqrd can) but do understand, you cannot easily base a distribution grid on renewable energy sources. Small scale (home or neighborhood based) solar or wind systems can help ease some pressure, but just cannot replace large power plants that are able to adjust output to meet demand.
Coal, however, is not a desirable long-term option either, given the health hazards of stack emissions (on which the Post-Gazette recently did a most illuminating series of stories) and the concern for global warming.
This leaves in my mind, but two electricity generation options for general large scale use: hydroelectricity and nuclear. Both are objectionable to many of my fellow liberals due to the immense amount of habitat destruction that hydro creates (although I'd argue that hydroelectric impoundments create as much habitat as they destroy, just a different kind of habitat) and what I consider an irrational fear of The Atom.
Nuclear power produces no stack emissions. The biggest drawback of course, is the nuclear waste produced, but as I've typed before, compare highly concentrated, relatively easily tracked spent nuclear fuel to the danger of stack emissions which go wherever the wind takes it, and the hazard posed by impoundments to contain the fly ash produced by burning coal.
Hydro is non-polluting. No stack emissions, no spent waste to contain. A big lake that can serve as a drinking water source and/or recreational uses. Its probably been explained to me before why it isn't done, but I've never understood why the multitude of flood control dams on the Allegheny, Ohio, and Monongahela rivers cannot have small hydroelectric stations associated with them.
So my friends, what would YOU rather have? I say replace the coal fired plants as they end their useful life with nuclear and hydro, but continue to use fossil fuels as a bridge technology until we're able to generate enough power with non-polluting sources. Subsidize small scale wind and solar systems to take some of the pressure off the coal and oil fired plants, and construct larger scale solar plants and wind farms where conditions warrant, such as the southwest and along ridgetops or off the coast.
Perhaps someday, controlled fusion power generation will be a reality.
Labels: coal, electricity, green power, hydroelectric, nuclear
