Welcome to the Energy Blog


  • The Energy Blog is where all topics relating to The Energy Revolution are presented. Increasingly, expensive oil, coal and global warming are causing an energy revolution by requiring fossil fuels to be supplemented by alternative energy sources and by requiring changes in lifestyle. Please contact me with your comments and questions. Further Information about me can be found HERE.

    Jim


  • SUBSCRIBE TO THE ENERGY BLOG BY EMAIL

After Gutenberg

Clean Break

The Oil Drum

Statistics

Blog powered by Typepad

« Another Cellulosic Ethanol Plant Announced | Main | Economists Favor Rasing Taxes On Fossil Fuels »

February 09, 2007

Comments

karl (I posted in response to this at the budget thread from the 6th)

Apparently I won't be able to post my longer final windpower note anywhere today but anyone can email me for it. It's about artificailly propping and keeping up mills when newer ones would work better because uthose built prematurely got federally funded and 'protected.'

I did just though study this blog entry and it's accompanying chart better and it is consistent with my post about how lopsided the return on investment is because there getting access to the methane instead of it being sold to the highest bidder year to year. Probably fuel cells will have to pay far more for it from elsewhere during it's tenure, or premature fallow to emptiness gained then they pay to burn it there/ would of paid in time appreciated dollars even allowing for risk by any measure..... Shame that will be. Ouch. Despite that cells will roll out, just later, just on a smaller scale, justu after too many more innocents have been burnt alive to serve dim bush.

karl ("no exposure to the volatility of natural gas prices")

Dam I'm right above so must write again!

"The Ormonde Project demonstrates improved economics and investment returns through:
• Diversification of income and cash-flow from two sources of power


>>>>> with no exposure to the volatility of natural gas prices

"

That can't be in the public interest. I believe the (last year abouts) congressional testimony about how wasteful it is to burn gas instead of convert it to water and electric potential except that the infrastructure to do so shouldnt' be on a car to grid goldbergian exploitation of heavy wheel addicts.

Developing that technologyin fact hinders large scale site installedd cell technology that only might permeat off shore to shallow/fallow fields if and only if they have not been burnt dry on a gimmick of some pretty propellers getting packaged in as they seem to admit mainly props.

It's on money that monetary decisions should be based. NOt this or that technologyt to suit bias or otherwise faulilly irrational astghetic tastes.


Further the statement
"
Our project is dominated by wind power but will also generate electricity from


>>two small gas


fields, Ormonde North and Ormonde South."

is more evidence of mischief. The table discloses that the fields ARE NOT SMALL IN COMPARISON TO THE AMOUNT OF PROFITS OR ENERGY 'produced.'

Isn't that the context in which they are described in the excerpt though? Isn't it?


https://www.seapower-generation.co.uk/who.htm

karl ("2 Dependent on the way in which the gas turbines are operated")

It is true that volatile prices have clean methane generators standing idle while cheaper fueled dirty ancient plants run continously. I personally have to suffer the choice of cheap electricity off peak, knowing it's coal, or spend a punitive rate to use clean methane, so I welcomed the news that one can do betther then burn it however cleanly.

They seem to expect us to believe that when the wind is blowing they won't burn the gas, even though they don't have to pay the market price for it. Since the price isn't volatile, just what determines whether they burn it now, or leave it be? The footnote is insufficient even if read. But mainly I don't understand the bit about revenue. It means the windpower is sold for more money right? It's just opposite to the way it should be. Clean fuels should be subsidized on purchase perhaps, but not more then convential is tariffed. The burning of methane even bought up while still in the ground stocks should be subject to regulation. Although I can't take the time to confirm this, they appear to be buying the right to engage in such combustion when the rest of us might be barred from doing so. It's not wind but fuel cells that need help getting paid for so as to suck up that which would otherwise essentially be flared even if at '100' percent efficient liek the resistive heaters so widely, obscenely, corruptly, irrationally, and likely now from wind powered!

amazingdrx

The Prairie National Park and windfarm would have a similar hybrid aspect.

https://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2006/2/9/1752958.html

Prairie grasses could be mowed and converted to biogas to backup the wind machine output. The grasses could be cut in strips, about once every three years. Sequestration would remain the same as natural prairie since organic fertilizer from the boigas digestor could be returned to the soil.

Mowing replaces the effect of fire in maintaining the prairie ecosystem.

Charles S

While Cape Cod overshadows other news about offshore wind turbines, Wired.com published an article titled "Inherit the Wind" which talks about other US regions are quietly approving offshore projects.

The comments to this entry are closed.

. .




Batteries/Hybrid Vehicles