Highland Ham wrote:
Last month I went to Palm springs for the Faire, and there was no
noticeable difference in the numbers of windmills in operation.

=====================
Having seen these machines near Palm Springs ,they seem to be rather small
and of an older design.

Rather small?!!!! You call 350kW or more with blades 150 Feet (45m)
long *SMALL*????

Modern machines are much bigger (up to 2 MW rated capacity) and more
reliable.

Even bigger!

In the Netherlands they are now planning a number of 2MW machines offshore
,approx 8 kms off the coast placed on seabed based stuctures.
Their designers are focussing on minimum maintenance ( only once every 3
years) .

To date land based machines produce on average only 16% of their rated
capacity ,due to periods without adequate wind and to technical outage /
maintenance. Yet they seem profitable. In the Netherlands many farmers have
them on their land ,especially
in the northern provinces.

I'd like to know what has to be done to get the generated power back
into the grid.

Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH

Winfield Hill wrote:

Highland Ham wrote...

Having seen these machines near Palm Springs, they seem to be
rather small and of an older design.


I wonder if they shouldn't be replaced, that's prime wind territory.

Well, you know that the coops or companies that built them had to invest
heavily and borrow money to finance their construction. What makes you
think they can just tear down the old ones before they've paid off their
loans, and borrow even more heavily to finance new ones??

In the Netherlands many farmers have them on their land, especially
in the northern provinces.

Do they rent the space to the wind-generator owners, or do they each
install and maintain them themselves? Is there a subsidized rate for
the sale of electricity to the grid?

Thanks,
- Win

whill_at_picovolt-dot-com

Winfield Hill wrote:

Highland Ham wrote...

Having seen these machines near Palm Springs, they seem to be
rather small and of an older design.


I wonder if they shouldn't be replaced, that's prime wind territory.

Well, you know that the coops or companies that built them had to invest
heavily and borrow money to finance their construction. What makes you
think they can just tear down the old ones before they've paid off their
loans, and borrow even more heavily to finance new ones??

In the Netherlands many farmers have them on their land, especially
in the northern provinces.

Do they rent the space to the wind-generator owners, or do they each
install and maintain them themselves? Is there a subsidized rate for
the sale of electricity to the grid?

Thanks,
- Win

whill_at_picovolt-dot-com

"Roger Gt" wrote in message
. com...

READ, it will inform you!

That's pretty funny.

"Roger Gt" wrote in message
. com...

READ, it will inform you!

That's pretty funny.

In article , box
says...
KR Williams wrote:

In article ,
says...
On a sunny day (Thu, 15 Apr 2004 05:57:18 GMT) it happened
wrote in :

...snip...

Add that in, and the cost of a $15000 system is
much worse - over 30,000 in a 25 year, 7% mortgage.

You have to take into account that the cost of a kWh from
the grid in 25 years will be a LOT higher too, if there
still is a grid during and after WW3 that is.

That's silly economics. I do not have to take into account the
cost of electricity in 25 years. I can wait. Solar cells are
becoming cheaper too. When the cost of the solar cell is less
than the cost of power from the grid I can switch, saving all of
the negative amortization inbetween, and have a *new* system in
25 years, just as you're in need of replacing yours. ;-)

My guess though, is that solar cells for the individual will
never become cheaper than power from the grid, since the power
company has access to the same technology and a *lot* better
financing possibilities. ...and they don't have to have the pay-
back in my lifetime.

They have access to the tech, BUT, they also have to maintain the
distribution system. Since my electricity has been unbundled,
roughly half of my cost per Kwh goes to the distribution co., not the
producer. Ice storms, drunk drivers, blown line fuses all cost money.
As well as the personel and associated benefits packages,
transportation costs of materials, etc. for maintaining the lines.
All this is avoided cost on home solar.

There is still a huge advantage of scale. Without the grid
you'll have to store your own energy, which is certainly not
free. Peak energy usage is not near peak insolation.
And...
www.solaraccess.com/news/story?storyid=6482

talking about a new discovery:

"A solar cell with the simplest possible physical structure could
achieve 50 percent efficiency or better, far higher than any yet
demonstrated in the laboratory."

Irrelevant. The large producers will have any technology you
will, first and on a much more massive scale.


It isn't cost effective for most of us yet, but the tipping point
is coming.

So is the end of the oil reserves. It's been coming twenty years
from now, for about a hundred years. The tipping point will
certainly come, but the large generators will make it there
before your ****-ant house will.

--
Keith

In article , box
says...
KR Williams wrote:

In article ,
says...
On a sunny day (Thu, 15 Apr 2004 05:57:18 GMT) it happened
wrote in :

...snip...

Add that in, and the cost of a $15000 system is
much worse - over 30,000 in a 25 year, 7% mortgage.

You have to take into account that the cost of a kWh from
the grid in 25 years will be a LOT higher too, if there
still is a grid during and after WW3 that is.

That's silly economics. I do not have to take into account the
cost of electricity in 25 years. I can wait. Solar cells are
becoming cheaper too. When the cost of the solar cell is less
than the cost of power from the grid I can switch, saving all of
the negative amortization inbetween, and have a *new* system in
25 years, just as you're in need of replacing yours. ;-)

My guess though, is that solar cells for the individual will
never become cheaper than power from the grid, since the power
company has access to the same technology and a *lot* better
financing possibilities. ...and they don't have to have the pay-
back in my lifetime.

They have access to the tech, BUT, they also have to maintain the
distribution system. Since my electricity has been unbundled,
roughly half of my cost per Kwh goes to the distribution co., not the
producer. Ice storms, drunk drivers, blown line fuses all cost money.
As well as the personel and associated benefits packages,
transportation costs of materials, etc. for maintaining the lines.
All this is avoided cost on home solar.

There is still a huge advantage of scale. Without the grid
you'll have to store your own energy, which is certainly not
free. Peak energy usage is not near peak insolation.
And...
www.solaraccess.com/news/story?storyid=6482

talking about a new discovery:

"A solar cell with the simplest possible physical structure could
achieve 50 percent efficiency or better, far higher than any yet
demonstrated in the laboratory."

Irrelevant. The large producers will have any technology you
will, first and on a much more massive scale.


It isn't cost effective for most of us yet, but the tipping point
is coming.

So is the end of the oil reserves. It's been coming twenty years
from now, for about a hundred years. The tipping point will
certainly come, but the large generators will make it there
before your ****-ant house will.

--
Keith

KR Williams wrote:
In article , box
says...
It isn't cost effective for most of us yet, but the tipping point
is coming.

So is the end of the oil reserves. It's been coming twenty years
from now, for about a hundred years. The tipping point will
certainly come, but the large generators will make it there
before your ****-ant house will.

I think the main point is that solar PV is a technology that
does not require massive infrastructure. It's something that
can be done on an individual and distributed basis. The big
power companies really don't have that much advantage over
individuals.

Anthony

KR Williams wrote:
In article , box
says...
It isn't cost effective for most of us yet, but the tipping point
is coming.

So is the end of the oil reserves. It's been coming twenty years
from now, for about a hundred years. The tipping point will
certainly come, but the large generators will make it there
before your ****-ant house will.

I think the main point is that solar PV is a technology that
does not require massive infrastructure. It's something that
can be done on an individual and distributed basis. The big
power companies really don't have that much advantage over
individuals.

Anthony

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:11:09 +0100, "Highland Ham"
wrote:


To date land based machines produce on average only 16% of their rated
capacity ,due to periods without adequate wind and to technical outage /
maintenance. Yet they seem profitable. In the Netherlands many farmers have
them on their land ,especially
in the northern provinces.

Those 16 % rated capacity figures seems to be quite low, since usually
20-30 % is quoted for land based windmills near the coast over here.
Of course, if you use a too big generator for a particular place and
wing size, the percentage will go down.

If you use a smaller generator with the same turbine and same
location, the percentage will go up, however, during stronger winds
you can only utilise the amount of power as the generator is rated for
and some of the wind energy is "lost" during stronger winds compared
to a larger generator.

During system design, you can select the percentage by selecting the
generator size. The generator cost compared to the other costs of the
windmill will determine the most economical generator size and thus
also this percentage.

Paul OH3LWR