RV Fuel Issues & Prices - Post 'Em Here!

When I want unbiased, independent, dependable information, I always look to a California bureaucratic report. :R

The most innovative and simplistic energy storage system I have seen yet devised is pumped water storage. In times of abundance you move a volume of water from a low point to a high point. When needed you gravity feed that water to hydraulic turbines. The water is reused with evaporation being the loss.

The best system to transmit was to generate AC, boost voltage, rectify to DC, transmit as high voltage DC, covert it back to AC, reduce voltage to useable levels. This method increases the carrying capacity of existing transmission lines significantly.

Simple is best.

The CA wind industry will fall apart when the huge subsidies stop. As far as using where there are no power lines, what about when the wind doesn't blow? How do you store the energy? What is wrong with the tried and true method of a diesel generator? Windmills work well for filling up water tanks on a farm with a surge tank. If you need constant electrical power, wind doesn't work. Would you like for your home AC to be be run by wind power on a very hot, still day?

Overall once they are built I can't see too much to go wrong providing they are located correctly.

I too want these to work. The problem isn't the fuel as in fossil fuel plants. but in paying off the capital. They are so expensive, the cost of paying off the capital is more than the value of the energy produced. An analogy would be buying a motor home for $100,000 and thinking you will make it up by saving $30 a night for a 2 week vacation. The value of the money must be taken into account. The tip of the blades on the huge windmills in the North Sea (over 300 feet in diameter) is closet to 1100 hundred mpg (no typo eleven hundred). The forces generated are massive and is is shaking apart the concrete embedded into sea bed 14 meters (45 feet). They figured the cost of the power with a life of 20 years and are getting 8 plus. Makes the power costs go up by 250% when it was already much higher at 20 years. There is some maintenance, but the cost pales in relation to the start up cost. The wind blows a lots more offshore due to the uneven heating of the land and ocean from the sun. That is why they want to put them offshore (not in the middle, but with 15 miles). The ones on land have had many problems with bird kills and they even have gotten exemptions from fines for killing the bald eagle and condors. The bigger the blades, the faster the tip speed and the more efficient they are. There are other problems and many lawsuits about the noise problems and what they call "flicker" which causes neighbors to have headaches. There are many home systems out there that can be bought. There is also the big problem of what to do when the wind doesn't blow or slows suddenly. You must have fossil fuel plants on stand by for these and they do not just turn on and off. They must be ramped up which can take hours. For the individual, batteries can be a huge cost. There are cheaper methods like using the excess during windy periods to pump water into an uphill lake and then run it down hill through a generator when it is not windy. Then you have to pay for the generator and the pump. What we need is more research on the generators to make them more efficient. When I see folks make statements that it is going well and expanding or has a 5 year payback, it is just bizarre.

I don't know, sounds like its doing okay here in CA:

Overview of Wind Energy in California

In the year 2004, wind energy in California produced 4,258 million kilowatt-hours of electricity, about 1.5 percent of the state's total electricity. That's more than enough to light a city the size of San Francisco.

More than 13,000 of California's wind turbines, or 95 percent of all of California's wind generating capacity and output, are located in three primary regions: Altamont Pass (east of San Francisco - a portion of which is shown on the right in this photo from NREL), Tehachapi (south east of Bakersfield) and San Gorgonio (near Palm Springs, east of Los Angeles). In 1995, these areas produced 30 percent of the entire world's wind-generated electricity.

According to the Electric Power Research Institute, the cost of producing wind energy has decreased nearly four fold since 1980. The levelized cost of energy from wind turbines in 1993 was about 7.5 cents per kilowatt/hour. With current wind research and development efforts, the Energy Commission estimates that newer technologies can reduce the cost of wind energy to 3.5 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Wind energy also creates jobs. The America Wind Energy Association estimated that through the early 1990s, 1,200 direct jobs in California's wind industry, with as many as 4,000 indirect jobs, were created. Total private investment in wind energy in California amounted to $3.2 billion through 1991.

Smaller turbines can be used by farms, homes and businesses in windy locations, such as along the coast. They can also be used (like solar cells) in areas where it is not feasible to run power lines because of the cost.

The Energy Commission tracks wind production in its annual Wind Performance Reports.

Lindsay

I'm not against wind power any more than water power. They built the Empire State Building and the foundation is ok. If foundations are bad it's poor engineering. That being said it's not a cure all either. It has no fuel cost. The turbines should last as I have seen steam turbines go two decades without a major overhaul. They run at 3600 RPM and are hot. Gas turbines are even hopper and faster requiring a reduction gear and their very reliable. The blades on a wind turbine probably have some erosion issues. Overall once they are built I can't see too much to go wrong providing they are located correctly.

Solar has issues.

"The turbines are intended to run for 20 years but in some cases they have had to be pulled in after only eight years."
Big deal. That's no worse than you'd expect for a new technology.
Wind power continues to grow and offset some of the oil that would be used for electric generation, thus giving hope that there will be sufficient fuel at low prices for our RVs.

Evidently you didn't read either article. Wind power isn't continuing to grow. It is a disaster. Read the second article by a meteorologist who has testified before both houses of congress and is well respected. The wind farm has been in operation and now the foundations are starting to crumble. None will make it to 20 years. This makes the power generated even more expensive. When they break they will not be replaced. Wind power provides less than 1% of the US's power and is very expensive. It isn't growing at all as you claim. It is all based on getting the subsidies which will soon end. We have massive amounts of oil right under our feet by the environmentalist and politicians won't allow us to use it. I have other news for you too. They don't like RV and don't want us to use them either. Now you are so much for taxpayers spending their money on these boondoggles, how much have you supported alternatives. I keep asking and you keep not admitting it. Makes me think you have none.

Oil also fills the gas tanks for the workers that mine the coal. The point being?

Regardless the coal is still being mined and used for electrical generation in the developing world. Because we use less it's cheaper for them. That the goal and it's being achieved.

DelCamper wrote:
Fwzziwig

No oil is used for electrical generation. They switched from oil to coal and now to natural gas. Both 6 oil (bunker C to you old salts) and #2 (which is like gold) has not been used for decades.

Oil is just used to mine and transport the coal.

Fwzziwig

No oil is used for electrical generation. They switched from oil to coal and now to natural gas. Both 6 oil (bunker C to you old salts) and #2 (which is like gold) has not been used for decades.