As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
[Energy]I don't quite understand this
EWom
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
The Chinook Line: http://www.transcanada.com/company/zephyr_chinook.html
Basically, the plan is to set up giant windfarms in Montana (my home state) and Wyoming, to power... Las Vegas.
I don't understand why you'd want to use Montana and Wyoming to power Las Vegas, or anywhere other than our selves for that matter. Yes it's good for the world blah blah green to switch to wind power. By why can't Nevada set up a windfarm to power their own towns? I think Montana is still using mostly coal plants and dams for their power, so if you're building these windfarms why not use them actually in Montana, instead of pumping all that energy to another state?
In fact we just had a hydro damn torn down, and nothing put in place to replace the energy it created, while not a lot (3 megawats) that's still 3 megawats that has to be provided for now by coal. If there is going to be a windfarm that will produce 3,000 MW, why not use it to knock out all of the coal plans in Montana?
The website says it should help all of the West/South West, but the news I just heard on it, said it's going directly to Vegas.
However, Montana is a very unfriendly state to out of staters. In fact we downright hate them for the most part, so the news could be painting it as "VEGAS STEALING UR MEGAHURTZ!", but I really don't understand why we should not be benefiting from the power generated in our state.
Basically, the plan is to set up giant windfarms in Montana (my home state) and Wyoming, to power... Las Vegas.
I don't understand why you'd want to use Montana and Wyoming to power Las Vegas, or anywhere other than our selves for that matter. Yes it's good for the world blah blah green to switch to wind power. By why can't Nevada set up a windfarm to power their own towns? I think Montana is still using mostly coal plants and dams for their power, so if you're building these windfarms why not use them actually in Montana, instead of pumping all that energy to another state?
In fact we just had a hydro damn torn down, and nothing put in place to replace the energy it created, while not a lot (3 megawats) that's still 3 megawats that has to be provided for now by coal. If there is going to be a windfarm that will produce 3,000 MW, why not use it to knock out all of the coal plans in Montana?
The website says it should help all of the West/South West, but the news I just heard on it, said it's going directly to Vegas.
However, Montana is a very unfriendly state to out of staters. In fact we downright hate them for the most part, so the news could be painting it as "VEGAS STEALING UR MEGAHURTZ!", but I really don't understand why we should not be benefiting from the power generated in our state.
Whether they find a life there or not, I think Jupiter should be called an enemy planet.
EWom on
0
Posts
How is it more plausible to power Las Vegas from a windfarm in Montana/Wyoming then Nevada?
and
If Montana is going to be building windfarms, why isn't Montana going to get any energy from them?
and,
And it's going to cost Las Vegas or Nevada, or whoever $3billion or more to set this up, again, how is it more cost efficient to run gigantic lines across multiple states, than to build something closer by?
...
the answer to your question is money.
1)Generate Electricity
2)Sell it to poor bastards who can't do #1
3)Profit
And since the Metro Las Vegas area has twice as many people as the state of Montana (according to my 20 seconds of research on Wikipedia), I'm guessing there's money to be made here. And probably more energy generation potential in Montana than is required for the needs of Montana.
And the very link you provide shows that this isn't the government of Montana building these things, its a private company, so they can do what they like. You seem never to have run across the concept of power being generated in one area and sold to another. Its extremely common, here in Canada, especially from BC and Quebec we sell alot of electrical power to the USA.
ITT: EM has not learned from las vegas
It probably does amount to Montana being a far better location for generating power then Nevada. I mean Nevada has plenty of cheap open land no doubt, but it probably doesn't have the wind currents they think they can harness in Montana.
The current source of Vegas' power (the hoover dam?) would be free to send its power elsewhere, I guess?
Actually, heating residences generates more carbon emissions than cooling does.
Note I'm not commenting on air-conditioned casinos with vaulted ceilings or energy wasted on marquee lights or any such thing. It's just that demonization of air conditioning as an environmental taboo is one of the windmills at which I tilt.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Looks like it is actually a Canadian company that is doing this.
yes, but while they may have bought the land the windfarm is on, I have a hard time believing they own all the land across all the states that the line is going to run. Somewhere they have to run across Government land, where wouldn't they have to deal with the state or federal government?
At which point, what are they offering the government to go through with their project? Seems to two, 1000+ mile powerlines would be higher upkeep, and uglier land marks than Nevada building a new nuclear plant. Which I know won't happen because fuck the government for not embracing nuclear power
MONTANA AVERAGE WIND SPEED - MPH STATION | ID | Years | Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec | Ann BAKER AIRPORT ASOS |KBHK|1998-2006| 10.4 10.5 12.2 12.5 12.7 11.7 10.7 10.8 10.0 10.3 10.5 10.7 | 11.1 BILLINGS-LOGAN AP ASOS |KBIL|1996-2006| 12.8 12.2 11.0 10.5 10.4 10.0 9.3 9.2 9.6 10.3 12.0 13.0 | 10.9 BOZEMAN AIRPORT ASOS |KBZN|1996-2006| 4.6 5.3 6.4 7.2 7.0 6.3 6.3 6.4 6.1 5.7 4.9 4.8 | 5.9 BUTTE AIRPORT ASOS |KBTM|1996-2006| 4.7 5.0 6.8 7.3 7.7 7.3 6.9 6.6 6.2 6.2 5.2 4.9 | 6.2 CUT BANK AIRPORT ASOS |KCTB|1996-2006| 14.6 12.8 13.3 12.8 13.4 12.3 11.2 10.2 11.4 13.0 13.6 14.6 | 12.8 DILLON AIRPORT ASOS |KDLN|1997-2006| 10.2 9.7 10.3 10.0 9.6 8.4 8.0 8.0 8.7 9.0 9.3 9.2 | 9.2 GLASGOW AIRPORT ASOS |KGGW|1996-2006| 9.3 9.3 11.7 12.4 12.6 11.4 10.7 11.0 10.5 10.3 9.3 9.4 | 10.6 GLENDIVE AIRPORT AWOS |KGDV|1996-2006| 9.5 9.7 10.5 11.3 11.6 10.4 9.4 9.6 9.6 10.1 9.7 10.2 | 10.1 GREAT FALLS AP ASOS |KGTF|1996-2006| 13.3 12.3 11.8 11.2 11.3 10.2 9.6 9.2 10.4 11.9 13.2 13.8 | 11.5 GREAT FALLS-MALSTROM AF |KGFA|1996-2006| 12.3 9.9 11.9 10.7 10.3 9.7 9.1 8.8 9.9 10.4 13.2 13.2 | 10.9 HAVRE AIRPORT ASOS |KHVR|1996-2006| 9.9 9.6 10.7 11.0 11.6 10.6 9.8 9.5 9.8 9.8 10.6 11.0 | 10.3 HELENA AIRPORT ASOS |KHLN|1996-2006| 5.8 6.3 7.8 8.3 8.4 8.2 7.4 6.6 6.7 6.6 5.8 6.0 | 7.0 JORDAN AIRPORT ASOS |KJDN|1996-2006| 7.3 7.9 9.3 10.0 10.5 9.7 8.4 8.4 8.2 8.2 7.9 8.1 | 8.6 KALISPELL AIRPORT ASOS |KGPI|1996-2006| 4.1 3.8 6.0 6.7 6.6 5.7 5.2 5.0 4.6 4.2 4.0 3.2 | 4.9 LEWISTOWN AIRPORT ASOS |KLWT|1996-2006| 10.6 9.5 10.2 9.8 9.9 9.0 7.9 8.0 8.5 9.2 10.2 10.7 | 9.5 LIVINGSTON AIRPORT ASOS |KLVM|1996-2006| 19.8 17.4 16.2 14.0 13.1 11.9 11.0 11.2 12.7 14.6 18.4 20.4 | 15.2 MILES CITY AP ASOS |KMLS|1996-2006| 8.8 9.4 10.6 11.2 11.3 10.5 9.9 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.3 9.3 | 9.9 MISSOULA AIRPORT ASOS |KMSO|1996-2006| 3.2 3.7 5.4 6.1 6.0 6.1 5.7 5.2 4.3 3.9 3.5 3.7 | 4.7 SIDNEY AIRPORT AWOS |KSDY|1996-2006| 8.9 9.0 9.5 10.2 10.4 9.0 7.7 7.9 8.2 8.8 8.7 9.4 | 9.0 WOLF POINT AIRPORT ASOS |KOLF|1998-2006| 7.1 7.6 9.4 10.3 10.4 8.9 8.2 8.3 7.6 7.7 7.3 7.6 | 8.3NEVADA AVERAGE WIND SPEED - MPH STATION | ID | Years | Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec | Ann DESERT ROCK AP-MERCURY |KDRA|1996-2006| 8.0 8.8 9.2 10.7 10.5 10.5 9.6 9.1 8.8 8.2 7.7 8.4 | 9.1 ELKO AIRPORT ASOS |KEKO|1996-2006| 4.6 5.3 5.9 6.7 6.4 6.3 5.7 5.3 5.0 4.6 4.6 4.8 | 5.4 ELY AIRPORT ASOS |KELY|1996-2006| 9.0 9.0 9.6 10.3 9.8 10.2 9.8 9.9 9.6 9.5 8.8 9.2 | 9.5 EUREKA AIRPORT ASOS |KP68|1996-2006| 5.4 6.2 7.7 8.3 7.6 8.0 7.3 7.6 7.1 6.5 5.6 5.3 | 6.8 FALLON NAS |KNFL|1996-2006| 5.8 7.0 7.9 8.6 8.4 8.1 7.4 6.8 6.6 5.7 5.6 5.8 | 6.9 LAS VEGAS INTL AP ASOS |KLAS|1996-2006| 6.6 7.5 8.6 10.3 10.1 10.1 8.9 8.4 7.9 7.1 6.3 6.5 | 8.1 LAS VEGAS-NELLIS AFB |KLSV|1996-2006| 8.6 9.8 10.3 12.4 11.6 11.8 10.2 9.9 9.9 9.0 8.0 8.5 | 10.1 LOVELOCK AIRPORT ASOS |KLOL|1996-2006| 4.8 6.4 7.2 8.5 8.7 8.8 7.7 6.9 6.3 5.7 5.0 4.7 | 6.7 NORTH LAS VEGAS AP ASOS |KVGT|2000-2006| 6.8 7.3 8.4 10.2 9.2 9.0 7.9 7.7 7.9 6.9 6.7 6.5 | 7.8 RENO INTL AIRPORT ASOS |KRNO|1996-2006| 4.4 5.6 6.9 8.1 8.2 8.0 7.1 6.2 5.3 4.6 4.8 5.1 | 6.1 TONOPAH AIRPORT ASOS |KTPH|1996-2006| 8.6 9.8 10.8 11.8 10.8 10.7 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.4 8.7 8.8 | 9.8 WINNEMUCCA AIRPORT ASOS |KWMC|1996-2006| 7.1 7.9 8.0 8.3 8.2 8.4 7.9 7.6 6.9 6.7 6.7 7.2 | 7.6Found at: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/htmlfiles/westwind.final.htm
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Montana has under 1million people, and is the fourth largest state.
EDIT: And it looks like the area they want to build in Montana is near Billings, which is at 10.9 average mph based on what you posted. But that is also the most populated area in Montana, not sure where they'll build a large wind farm, as over there it's a huge sprawling suburb.
And I don't care so much that it's happening, I just can't believe that for $3billion dollars, there isn't a better source of energy than piping it from Montana and Wyoming.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
>.> <.< Shh. (Yeah, I misread.)
Because Solar arrays are still far and away the most inefficient means of power collection. I believe the best efficiency they can muster is about 15% tops, while a coal or nuclear plant tops out at 50-60% efficiency. Solar panels are also way more expensive. Wind turbines split the difference at around 25% or so if memory serves.
And by the way, wind turbines need a constant wind direction as well as a good speed. I imagine that's easier to find over Montana, what with the jet stream and all.
Efficiency matters a fuck of a lot less when you're talking about a resource that is essentially infinite and always available.
That is all just extremely, very wrong.
You are wrong. Efficiency matters because it is a multiplier on cost. If it takes 4 solar arrays to produce the power from 1 coal plant, and each of those solar arrays is twice as expensive as a coal plant (a conservative estimate) then that electricity costs 8 times as much to produce.
And keep in mind, it's not like you can just throw up a solar array and let it run for eternity. Solar arrays are more expensive merely to maintain than the costs incurred by most coal or nuclear plants.
If solar arrays were actually cheaper, don't you think more people would be using them? Power companies aren't evil, cackling Captain Planet villains; they run businesses.
Khavall was probably confused by your earlier post's use of the word efficiency. It's sort of a thing with photovoltaic cells that their efficiency in terms of light energy converted to electric energy is not so amazing, and that is frequently discussed as a contributing factor to wind power's relatively superior efficiency in terms of money converted into electric energy. These are two entirely different uses of the word efficiency.
EDIT: like those percentages. What the fuck are they percentages of? I mean, I don't disagree with what you are fundamentally trying to communicate: solar energy is not cost-effective with current technology. But your methods of communication are boggling.
Solar cells could have a 1% efficiency but still be better than a 100% efficient antimatter powerplant if the prices of antimatter remain as high as they currently are (let me put it this way: a handful of antimatter will cost you an arm, at LEAST).
The question is simply which one is cheaper, which DOES have to do with efficiency but not in a "this number is bigger than this number" way. A solar cell with 40% efficiency (which is around the current best, by the way) will be about four times cheaper than four cells with 10% efficiency, but you cannot compare it to a wind turbine with 50% efficiency because they DO NOT USE THE SAME INPUTS.
I'm tired so this is probably longer and ramblier than needed. Basically: don't compare the efficiencies, because you can't, because they aren't the same number. Analyzing the costs associated, however, is reasonable.
I never asked for this!
Concentrated Thermal Solar power is far better than PVs if you're talking nevada, and I don't think the cost per watt is nearly as far off compared to more conventional power generation methods. It's still not great, but it's better in terms of economic viability and how green they are to build than PVs.
Curse you! I was going to mention this. Solar thermal is shit hot, and underutilized.
Read this.
I mean, not to be a dick but yes it often is more cost efficient to move generation to a location where the form of energy desired is located, then transmit the power. You can often utilize existing transmission capacity, even, at least for the bulk of the run. Not sure if that's the case for whatever generation operation you're talking about, though. Seems like it might not be.
And if you don't sell it to Vegas, you can sell it to California. Or Arizona. Or Vancouver. Or use it locally. Point is, the wind is there and there's no reason not to harness it. There's also no reason we can't later build a solar plant down in Nevada as well.
Except that Montana will benefit either way. Jobs to build it, jobs to maintain it. Taxes generated in-state. And possibly cheaper power as well, though that would require Northwestern Energy to not suck.
It's what they're up to in South Dakota as well, we don't even have 800,000 people in the whole state so companies want to throw wind turbines all over the damn place. We even got a rural school district that is constructing a wind farm to make money to stay open. Although we run into a few out of staters that bitch about their scenic vistas being spoiled by wind turbines like ten miles from their vacation houses.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Because the Earth turns.
I know at least two people who have been employed (and paid decently) working in connection with one of the new wind farms. Jobs in the state are being created. Maybe not as many as one might hope for, but still some.
Not presently, but Wikipedia is the fount of all knowledge:
----
More on-topic question: I have no idea how this works specifically, so I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Montana generates electricity and dumps it in the national grid, and then Nevada gets to take a little bit more off, and some intermediary authority/company collects from Nevada and pushes it back to Montana (through assorted intermediary corporations/etc. etc. before it eventually is paid as rent? Or something?). Is that it?
Wow.
It might be tricker than in Denmark, as the North Sea is both pretty shallow and geologically stable, while the west coast cuts off into the deep ocean pretty quickly if I remember right.
I'm really more surprised that we don't exploit Lake Michigan more than we do. It seems like it'd be the perfect place to test new tidal equipment and offshore turbines. Being a freshwater lake it'd have less stressors on it for experimental stuff, and it'd seem like some of the universities and physics labs around Chicago would be a great place to run tests on stuff.