scrubbedexpat099

If you rely on wind, what do you do when the wind does not blow?

If you rely on PV what do you do when the sun does not shine?

scrubbedexpat099

I think I could talk for an hour on this, so just some headline points:

There are some things you can do which have a very quick payback, others are much harder. The low hanging fruit includes just using power more efficiently. The House I am in at the moment used two logs to heat it last night despite the temperature dropping below 0F, it has electric heat, cheap to install but only as a back up, we have never used it when we have been here.

Long distance transmission is very wasteful.

I mentioned wind, the Scottish example shows that no solution is obvious, depends. Wind where I am is not a good solution, on the eastern plains, yes, problem is there is not that much demand there so you are into transmission again.

I use a lot of Biomass, now the vast majority comes within 20 miles. They are/were going to Biomass in the UK but having to bring some of it in from South America! Obviously bad.

I have received grants but I am aware that there is danger in making illogical choices if it was not for the grants/subsidies.

jeffreyhy

Agreed.

Just saying that in today's world, wind is not as helpful as many people would like to think. The wind tends to not blow when electricity is needed most, and to blow the most when electricity is needed the least. And backup generators need to be online, idling, burning fuel, ready to 'pick up the slack', should the wind die down. There was a big problem in Texas a year or two back when a significant amount of the energy being used was coming from wind generation and the wind suddenly died, and there was insufficient transmission capacity to bring in electricity from outside the area to make up for the loss.

Solar is much better, even though it's equally erratic, because it tends to be most available when electricity is most needed and when it's not available that's when electricity is least needed.

Regards, JEff

Pulaski

I heard a year or two back about a plan to put turbines on the seabed in the gulf stream, just off the east coast of Florida. The energy content of the vast bulk of water circulating in the gulf stream is substantial and is relentless, not dependent on sunshine, wind, rainfall, or tides. I haven't seen anything since about the plans.

Bink

The issue with schemes like this is there are many additional costs and complexities.

Efficiency is one, it's hard to harness a large amount of this power.

Cost is another: it costs a lot of money to put many turbines out to sea (vessel costs for installation are very high).

Transmission is another: it's hard to tie that power back to the grid. This is the same issue as Offshore wind and why it's many years behind in the US compared to Europe. In Europe there's not a whole lot of space onshore anymore to harness wind, offshore there is and thus the cost is easier to swallow as there aren't many alternatives. The offshore wind farms are also closer to the grid and therefore easier to tie in. In the US, there's still a ton of onshore space to put turbines and it's considerably cheaper to build them onshore than offshore. For offshore wind particularly, you end up using a load of concrete which offsets their clean energy too.

Tidal energy has long been heralded as a potential reliable source but it's hard to harness effectively and can interfere with shipping lanes etc.

WEBlue

No no, I was wondering about today AND long-term, both. That's why I asked my question in the title, "Do you...? Would you?" I presumed when I started the thread that wind turbines were the way of the future and would become more, not less, numerous and ubiquitous, so that more people would see or hear them near their homes.

But now I'm wondering. From what you & some of the others are saying, do you feel that wind power is NOT (or shouldn't be) a major factor in energy production in the future here in the US? Is it more suited to denser areas like Europe? Or to areas (if there are any?) with consistant, reliable winds?

WEBlue

My husband is very interested in geothermal heat pumps (for home heating) and has investigated grants for this. Despite the initial expense & effort of installation, surely this would be a reliable, consistant source of energy - not erratic, like wind and solar?

jeffreyhy

Wind power can definitely be a factor. The question is, how big a role can it play. For now and the foreseeable future, the answer is less of a role than some people are pushing for. Some complementary energy technologies need to be developed to allow wind power to play a bigger role. I cannot comment on how much bigger or bigger than how much, but I have observed that in recent years, in areas where a lot of wind farms have been built, there is now sufficient wind generation to sometimes cause problems for the electric system. You mean more densely populated? Not if the people don't want to live near the turbines. Well, the more consistent the wind the more energy a given turbine can produce, i.e. the more cost effective it will be. Still need full back up for the wind generation, because there are still going to be those times when there just isn't enough wind and people don't want their lights and appliances to go out. Regards, JEff

jeffreyhy

Geothermal heat pumps are a consumer of energy, not a source of energy. But they consume less energy than electric, gas, or oil furnace for heating and less energy than electric or gas air conditioning.

Great if you can afford such a system, but recognize that a grant doesn't reduce the cost, it just shifts the burden of who is paying for it.

Regards, JEff

WEBlue

Yes, I do mean more densely populated, sorry. Granted, some people definitely do not want to live anywhere near the turbines, though some others seem relatively unbothered. At least a mile away is the distance the husband & I have settled on requiring if we should buy a house in a town with a wind farm. It's the folks who are within that distance from the big turbines who seem to suffer (again not all but some).

But surely in an uncrowded country like the US, with all this geographical space to spread out a bit, many towns could site their wind turbines such a "safe" distance from residential areas? Even many of the so-called "congested" towns along the Wash.DC-to-Boston northeast corridor could find enough empty spaces -- recycling centres or golf courses, for instance? -- to put these turbines well away from homes?

scrubbedexpat099

Do not forget the wind turbines need very tall towers to get in to undisturbed air.

scrubbedexpat099

There are three types, if you mean harnessing geothermal activity underneath your house then it would depend on your particular location. I have the map for Colorado, there is no activity near me.

They would be most efficient with low temperature distribution systems, in-floor radiant for example.

WEBlue

I'm talking about the usual kind of home-owner installed geothermal closed-loop heat pump that you bury in your back garden. It can be either vertical or horizontal, and it can either heat or cool the house. I've met several people here who have them, & there is federal grant money sometimes available for this.

I'm surprised that you say geo-thermal exchange systems wouldn't work in CO because I thought the western USA had quite a bit of geothermal resources much nearer the surface than where I am. But even here where I live in the northeast, people are installing the loop systems to access the thermal potential underground (even shallow depths).

This is a fairly consistant source of energy, not depending on the vagaries of weather, needing little/no maintenance once it's installed.

christmasoompa

We've got one. We're in the UK, but it was by far our most efficient way of heating our house - it was a complete renovation so had no heating system at all when we bought it, we're not on mains gas so it would have cost us a fortune to heat in oil, and it's a Grade II* listed Georgian farmhouse, so radiators would have been tricky.

We have underfloor heating everywhere, and despite it being a big old draughty house it's been brilliant.

scrubbedexpat099

There is geo thermal activity, Steamboat comes to mind, Princeton Hot Springs.

The system you are describing uses electricity more efficiently, but still uses electricity. Which one would be best depends on location. I have COP's of 3 or more mentioned.

I use biomass, still uses electricity, but the ratio is much much lower.

The horizontal system would not be logical where I am, the vertical well it depends on how easy it is to drill.