Microsoft, Facebook, Google Oppose Buffett-Backed Wind Farm Project (msn.com) 137
It's Warren Buffett versus Google, Facebook and Microsoft, according to a recent article by Bloomberg. (Alternate URL here.)
Google, Facebook and Microsoft Corp. — three of the world's biggest corporate buyers of clean power — are sounding the alarm that a nearly $4-billion, Warren Buffett-backed renewable-energy project proposed in Iowa isn't necessarily in the best interest of customers, including them.
If approved, it would be the largest complex of wind farms in the entire country when it comes online by the end of 2024, producing enough electricity for more than 700,000 homes. MidAmerican Energy, a utility owned by Buffett conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway Inc., has asked state regulators to approve terms including a guaranteed 11.25% rate of return before starting construction on a project it says will help in its efforts to trim carbon emissions by 75% compared to 2005 levels. But the big-name tech giants that operate data centers in the state warn the project, dubbed Wind Prime, could drive up electricity costs. MidAmerican, they say, should consider alternatives....
The fight is an important one to watch because it demonstrates the increasing influence technology giants have on the energy transition. Tech companies have pushed utilities in other parts of the U.S. to offer more clean energy options as they seek to clean up the sources of power for their energy-intensive operations. And since they buy so much power, the utilities often listen to them....
Facebook, which also buys large amounts of power to run data centers in Iowa, referred to the proposed project in a joint regulatory filing with Google as an "exceedingly costly, massive increase in generation that MidAmerican has not demonstrated is necessary." Last month, Microsoft filed its own petition with the Iowa Utilities Board saying it planned to join the tech-customer coalition.
Facebook and Google specifically complain that "Without a resource planning analysis, it is difficult if not impossible to assess all feasible alternatives to replace/expand existing generation capacity and which alternatives are a reasonable, cost-effective way to meet reliability requirements, forecasted customer need, a diversified fuel mix, and the like, or if it is simply being proposed to drive utility — or parent company — profitability....
"Wind Prime is an exceedingly costly, massive increase in generation that MidAmerican has not demonstrated is necessary or reasonable in light of other feasible alternatives. Before customers are forced to bear the increased costs that this project will result in, Wind Prime should be carefully considered by the Board through a complete record informed by a full and thorough discovery process."
If approved, it would be the largest complex of wind farms in the entire country when it comes online by the end of 2024, producing enough electricity for more than 700,000 homes. MidAmerican Energy, a utility owned by Buffett conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway Inc., has asked state regulators to approve terms including a guaranteed 11.25% rate of return before starting construction on a project it says will help in its efforts to trim carbon emissions by 75% compared to 2005 levels. But the big-name tech giants that operate data centers in the state warn the project, dubbed Wind Prime, could drive up electricity costs. MidAmerican, they say, should consider alternatives....
The fight is an important one to watch because it demonstrates the increasing influence technology giants have on the energy transition. Tech companies have pushed utilities in other parts of the U.S. to offer more clean energy options as they seek to clean up the sources of power for their energy-intensive operations. And since they buy so much power, the utilities often listen to them....
Facebook, which also buys large amounts of power to run data centers in Iowa, referred to the proposed project in a joint regulatory filing with Google as an "exceedingly costly, massive increase in generation that MidAmerican has not demonstrated is necessary." Last month, Microsoft filed its own petition with the Iowa Utilities Board saying it planned to join the tech-customer coalition.
Facebook and Google specifically complain that "Without a resource planning analysis, it is difficult if not impossible to assess all feasible alternatives to replace/expand existing generation capacity and which alternatives are a reasonable, cost-effective way to meet reliability requirements, forecasted customer need, a diversified fuel mix, and the like, or if it is simply being proposed to drive utility — or parent company — profitability....
"Wind Prime is an exceedingly costly, massive increase in generation that MidAmerican has not demonstrated is necessary or reasonable in light of other feasible alternatives. Before customers are forced to bear the increased costs that this project will result in, Wind Prime should be carefully considered by the Board through a complete record informed by a full and thorough discovery process."
We Can Get Wind Power Without a Sweetheart Deal (Score:5, Insightful)
A single company asking for a a guaranteed 11.25% rate of return for a special project for itself is an easy deal to say no to. This is crony capitalism writ large.
Re:We Can Get Wind Power Without a Sweetheart Deal (Score:4)
It does seem odd to be expecting subsidy for on shore wind in 2022. In Europe it's been subsidy free for a while now. Even off shore is getting close.
Still, it might be cheaper than the alternative.
Re:We Can Get Wind Power Without a Sweetheart Deal (Score:5, Insightful)
That's even better than a subsidy. It's possible to lose money on a subsidized enterprise if your costs exceed the revenue plus subsidy.
This, on the other hand, is a guaranteed profit margin.
Re: (Score:3)
For a government-regulated monopoly with government-regulated prices, it has been standard operating procedure in a lot of states to set electricity rates based on a government-set reasonable rate of return on capital investment. I'm not saying 11% is reasonable or not, but it's not a guaranteed profit, it's a guaranteed rate of return on capital investment.
Although those sorts of government powers can lead to corruption, electricity was thought of as a natural monopol
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They nuclear industry gets free, unlimited insurance. How do you calculate a ratio when one variable is infinity?
Check the guaranteed profits on new nuclear plants in Europe, while wind farms are actually paying the government for access to the resources.
Re: (Score:2)
They nuclear industry gets free, unlimited insurance. How do you calculate a ratio when one variable is infinity?
Here's a place to start. list off how much energy per year comes from nuclear power and how much from wind power. It might help to put that in but absolute terms as kWh, and in relative terms as a percentage of the entire kWh consumed. Then show how many US dollars (or which ever currency if doing this for some place other than the USA) gets paid out as subsidies and tax breaks to both the nuclear power industry and the wind power industry. Go ahead, show some numbers. Any numbers. You want to make the
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter how much energy comes from nuclear, you can't have a meaningful ratio where one side is infinity.
Still using the long debunked Dr. MacKay too I see. You've been called out for it several times on Slashdot. If you haven't got any other sources for that stuff, it's probably time to find some new copy/pasta.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter how much energy comes from nuclear, you can't have a meaningful ratio where one side is infinity.
If you wish to demonstrate how lopsided it is then you could do so by providing some numbers. Just anything other than your word for it. You are obviously in front of a computer connected to the internet and can do some searches.
How about just a Wikipedia link like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Nuclear energy gets 1% of the subsidies and renewable energy gets 59%. Nuclear energy provides how much of our energy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
So, nuclear provides about 9% of our total energy an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: We Can Get Wind Power Without a Sweetheart Dea (Score:2)
AT&T (before the breakup) had a similar deal, guaranteed profit based on expenses - it was this guaranteed profit that helped fund things like Bell Labs (transistor, Unix, and lots, lots more).
Re:We Can Get Wind Power Without a Sweetheart Deal (Score:5, Informative)
Warren isn't greedy enough. Our local sewer utility is privately owned and the California Public Utility Commission guarantees them a 22% return. As you might imagine, our sewer bills are north of $150/month as a result.
California has gone from the land of opportunity to the land of graft. The middle class is the chump that suffers the cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In many places, homes have well water,not city water, so no water meter to base sewage bills on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The big tech worry is that they won't be able to leverage lower prices for themselves.
They only semi-understand buffet et al.
Buffet is gonna eat them.
It's all very complicated... (Score:3)
...but in the end I think pleasing Microsoft would be a short term accommodation. Should Microsoft threaten to leave, the long term goal should be to accommodate the loss of revenue the company brings.
Microsoft, on the other hand, should do what's best for them, potentially including pulling up stakes, if that's what it takes.
These sorts of collisions are inevitable and will only get more complicated. It's a brave new world.
I was like how mega corporations (Score:2)
So if all that's inevitable why not have the government do things that help people who work for a living? It seems when it comes time to cut the government because it's too big we always cu
Re: (Score:3)
So if all that's inevitable why not have the government do things that help people who work for a living?
Same reason empires have an average lifespan of 250 years: the biggest unsolved problem in all of Human history is corruption. People who desire power for whatever reason, usually bad, whether because of the initial motivation or because of having to follow some path to it which results in a contempt for groups and things which hindered the journey up that path. Good people don't tend to try to have any influence over the lives of others, at all, the extreme opposite of that is evil people, who do. The p
Corruption isn't the problem (Score:2)
Well that's a crock of shit. (Score:2)
Starting with the age of empires crap - which is a crock of shit of its own.
It is neither a correct number, [uvm.edu] nor of any relevance whatsoever.
Unless anyone really gives any value to how long an incestuous line of bronze and iron age assholes can fuck their mothers and sisters before their kids start being born with extra rectums on their foreheads - OR to numbers gotten from averaging the age of Civilization also-rans like Yuen-Yuen empire (30 years baby) and the empire of Elam (1000 years).
The rest of the co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's how utilities are generally regulated - they're guaranteed a fixed profit if they're well run and provide reliable service. Because they are a local monopoly, if they're allowed a variable profit, or are not required to provide reliable service with good maintenance practices, etc., the for profit corporations tend to self-destruct to maximize short-term profit by slashing maintenance, such as in Texas. Utilities are only reliable because they're forced to by regulators, and where they're deregulated
Re: (Score:2)
I think its even less favorable than a "fixed profit" -- they're allowed to set rates against planned expenses which should result in a profit at the fixed rate. Which still leaves room for them to get to the end of the year with less than the fixed profit if they screw up. Now if some kind of serious externality occurs that costs them large unplanned expenses they can go back to the utility commission hat in hand and explain why they need to tack on some kind of temporary rate increase to make up for it,
Not sure the opposition fully makes sense (Score:2)
Why would they be forced to buy Wind Prime's wind energy? This is in addition to other energy sources. Maybe there is more to the story
Assuming the energy is not competitive, they will be priced out by the market
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There's doesn't need to be a conspiracy. A project this size with a high guaranteed rate of return is absurd for a mature technology. One way or the other you're paying for it, directly or indirectly.
I don't care if it's Microsoft, Facebook, or the devil himself calling them out on it, but this is one scenario where there needs to be a metric fuckton of due diligence and regulation if someone is going to come in and ask for a guaranteed profit.
This is a ridiculous move from tech companies (Score:2)
They are always touting thier use of clean energy and that X percent of thier energy use is clean or renewable. This is an opportunity for them to get clean energy directly. So what are they? Opposed or for clean energy
Re: (Score:2)
They are opposed to the profit guarantee for the wind farm, and they're right: Does the government guarantee you a profit?
Re: (Score:3)
They are opposed to the profit guarantee for the wind farm
But that's how the big boys do it. As monopolies, in order to prevent their abuse of pricing power, utilities commissions allow them a defined rate of return on capital investments. And 11.25% isn't that far out of line, considering that not all capital expenses are allowed in the rate calculation.
To date, most renewable energy projects have been small compared to the primary thermal and hydroelectric sources. Rates paid the renewable sources have just been calculated based on the prevailing rates of large
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Those are audacious terms (Score:5, Insightful)
Screw whether it's good for Google or Microsoft. But asking for a guaranteed rate of return of 11.5% on an investment, higher than the S&P average over a number of decades is a bit much. I guess risk-free investment is only for the rich, who can afford to past the risk itself onto the tax-payers.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it Google or MS saying something and not the representatives of the people complaining?
Who ultimately gets stuck with the bill if or when the power proves to be prohibitively expensive?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The implication here is that costs will ultimately be passed on to the public. At least if you follow the gist of dmomo's post.
Guaranteed 11.25% rate of return... (Score:2)
Socialism as log as it profits the rich (Score:4, Insightful)
MidAmerican Energy, a utility owned by Buffett conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway Inc., has asked state regulators to approve terms including a guaranteed 11.25%
It's unbelievable how anyone can call the US capitalist. The only capitalism that exists in the states is for the poor and middle class. The higher up you go in the wealth ladder the more socialist it becomes until you reach the top when it's communist. Natural resources are there for your exploit provided you are rich enough. God forbid if any of that wealth be made available to the average American citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless that is what you mean, you are using the wrong terms.
If great return is so obvious (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a chance that most renewables today could be undercut by cheap fission or fusion products in the near future. Buffet isn't a complete moron. Whether he thinks the odds of that are good is debatable, but if it's a non-zero chance then you have to hedge your bets.
Re: (Score:2)
It is always convenient for thieves to establish a guaranteed theft option. It doesn't mean it is a good idea to go along with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Never said it was. Though in this case he's peddling a much-sought-after product, albeit on strict terms. Not exactly "thievery". For those who must have their renewables, he's offering to make it happen. For a price. Who wants to be left holding the bag if/when renewables prove to be undesirable? Not him.
Re: (Score:2)
Signing up for a sufficiently bad deal is basically like volunteering to be ripped off. If the project in question is not viable enough as an economic enterprise for someone to put their capital at risk, it is dangerously likely not to be viable at all. Berkshire Capital is in the habit of making these kind of proposals, i.e. we do something, you bear all the risk and we still make a guaranteed profit. That is worse than crony capitalism, it is more like crony socialism.
Why would any sane utility sign up
Its very simple why they object (Score:2)
Its very simple why they object. One, they think the demand is not there. If facilities are built with no demand, this will raise the price per MWh for the demand that there is.
Two, more important, they think, very reasonably, that adding intermittent generation, especially a huge amount of it, to a conventionally powered grid, will raise costs per MWh.
In this they are certainly correct. There are two problems with intermittent generation. One it requires a lot of very expensive storage to make its prod
Re: (Score:2)
Wind power isn't random, it turns out to be highly predictable to within a fraction of a percent, which allows power companies to provide reliable low-cost power, by using as much cheap renewable power as they can (solar, wind, hydro) and then vary the more expensive fossil fuel sources to level the output to match demand. And, of course, power companies are increasingly deploying grid-scale batteries to level power production to match demand, which turns out to have a fantastic ROI because it allows them t
Govt guaranteed return for private companies? 11%? (Score:2)
Most Indians still talk highly about the railways built by British and touted as the superiority of them over the native folks, by even many native folks!
If you dig into the financing and building of the railways you see the extent of corruption and why India continues to be so damn corrupt. They learnt how to steal from people and the government from the true masters, the British civil service.
East India Company would rail ways to move raw materials for the
Why would anyone think this should be free? (Score:2)
An 11.25% ROI is pretty standard for a lot of companies. Costco, for example, doesn't sell anything unless they can get an 11% markup on it which is why they stop carrying certain items that appeared to be popular. But the real question is not just why the big tech companies think they should be getting a smokin' deal but why anyone would think that. There's no free lunch, folks. The marxist notion "from each according to his gifts to each according to his needs" is bullshit on every level you can think
Re: (Score:2)
11% markup is not 11% ROI.
Re: (Score:2)
For utilities 10% guaranteed return is typical, 11.25% is quite high, particularly on the scale of a multi-$billion investment - that's the kind of return you might shoot for in return for taking a risk, not a guaranteed rate of return backed by the government (i.e. zero risk investment).
ROI is the culprit (Score:2)
Regulated utility rates tend to be set based on ROI, return on investment. This is an incentive for boondoggle, but a sure thing for investors. Who else around here is getting 11% guaranteed return on their investments?
guaranteed 11.25% rate of return? (Score:2)
So, taxpayers, or electric utilities would raise rates, to meet that guarantee? Really?
And here I thought they were True Believers in the Invisible Hand of the Market.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, the utility gets a guaranteed but capped ROI in return for being a guaranteed monopoly that's required to invest in maintenance and infrastructure, provide a guaranteed SLA or pay penalties, etc.
For-profit unregulated utilities tend to boom-bust and fail.
Yes, Microsoft, Facebook, and Google... (Score:2)
Re: don't be evil (Score:4, Insightful)
All companies are inherently evil, they have to prioritize making money over anything else. Which is probably the reason Google dispensed thier slogan, that slogan is not good for business
Re: don't be evil (Score:4, Informative)
All companies are inherently evil, they have to prioritize making money over anything else.
That's a common misunderstanding [slashdot.org].
Re: don't be evil (Score:4, Insightful)
All public companies are, even if the Fiduciary duty exists does not force the to only go after money, there inherent nature is to make money, if they don't they fail.
They can have as many fancy slogans, and values written down to make them and the public feel better about themselves as they want but from what I have seen is they all go away the moment it starts effecting their bottom line.
Re: (Score:2)
My point was not that public companies are saints (although I disagree with your oversimplification). My point was that there is absolutely no legal obligation for them to always put monetary gain first, which is what the OP claimed and many other people often as well.
Re: (Score:2)
They're objecting to building a whole bunch of generating capacity in a low population area, with a publicly guaranteed return on investment. It does sound pretty shady.
Discussing the price of the wine is pretty silly, but so is splashing it around on the walls.
Re: (Score:3)
An area that is connected to other areas via the Eastern Interconnection, including some pretty high-population areas.
Re: (Score:3)
An area that is connected to other areas via the Eastern Interconnection, including some pretty high-population areas.
But none of the residents of other states will be exposed to the liability of any guaranteed returns. No question they should love this idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why not build the wind farm with THEIR money, they can assume the risk, and they can enjoy the higher rates from this unnecessary power plant?
Re: (Score:2)
As an environmentalist of course I love wind farms but the guaranteed rate of return sounds greedy and there is no mention of whether the rate increases with inflation. Can I demand 11% return? no, I don't even get 1% from my bank account.
It sounds like a plan to get a fail-proof high rate of interest with very little risk at the public's expense.
Re: (Score:2)
Inflation? It's a guaranteed profit. It not only increases with inflation, it increases with inefficiency. Oh, sorry electricity customers, we've had to hire a dozen executives to, um, manage the operation, and of course they all need private jets, hookers and blackjack. These are all business expenses of course, so your rates will be going up to cover them (plus 11% extra).
Re: don't be evil (Score:2)
Their argument boils down to "do your homework before you stick customers with a $4BN bill" - that's evil?
Follow the money? Why these three opponents? (Score:4, Interesting)
[I suppose it was a sincere FP, but mindless and shallow. Why bother? What does it profit the "winner" of FP? There must be some reason...]
What struck my eyeballs about this story is the "Why?" of the opposition. It must be a money thing, but what? I can imagine that one of those giant companies might be investing in a competing electricity-related project, but not that all three of them are investing in the same project. No skin off their their noses if there's some extra electricity in Iowa.
But no, I don't have enough time to do the research, so I'll throw it out there as the Subjective question. See y'all later, but I have to leave for a busy day now.
Re:Follow the money? Why these three opponents? (Score:5, Insightful)
... Berkshire Hathaway Inc., has asked state regulators to approve terms including a guaranteed 11.25% rate of return...
Here you go.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I saw that, but I don't see the connection you apparently regard as intuitively obvious.
Are you trying to argue it's some kind of economic fairness thing? If so, then that's the last thing those "opponents" should be concerned about, but rather I would imagine they should be delighted with the possible establishment of a new business opportunity to exploit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Follow the money? Why these three opponents? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's particularly odd for technology companies to oppose an energy project, even more so in an area where it looks like there would be a lack of demand. You would think areas will low land values and over-provisioned electricity are prime data center territory.
Re:Follow the money? Why these three opponents? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like someone inviting you on a holiday with a group of 50 people for $50,000 and asking you to commit to going and that you'll pay for your share based on those who go. If you say yes then you might be paying $1k if everyone goes or $10k if 5 people go.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still not following your reasoning. Where these "opponents" buy their energy is quite fungible. Even if they have major data centers in one particular area, they can just stop using them if they become too expensive to operate. Or get nasty and start salvaging them for parts to be used at other data centers.
Re: Follow the money? Why these three opponents? (Score:4, Insightful)
The "why" is right in the summary:
"Wind Prime is an exceedingly costly, massive increase in generation that MidAmerican has not demonstrated is necessary or reasonable in light of other feasible alternatives. Before customers are forced to bear the increased costs that this project will result in, Wind Prime should be carefully considered by the Board through a complete record informed by a full and thorough discovery process."
The Tech Giants don't want to pay higher electricity costs at their data centers - this $4BN project will, in their opinion, raise electricity costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically same response as I wrote to a similar comment. Do you think the location of data centers is not fungible? Is there some reason they can't turn off any data center that becomes too expensive to operate? I'm not seeing it for these three giants.
Or maybe you think they just hate the idea of possible market imbalances unless their own beaks are getting wet? If so, then "These are the hypocrites you are looking for", with the usual apologies to Obi-Wan Kenobi.
Re: (Score:2)
It's striking that they call it expensive. Typically wind power is cheaper than most other power sources - only hydro and industrial scale solar are cheaper. So perhaps the extremely high guaranteed rate of return to the investors is what they're really pushing against?
Re: (Score:2)
Basically ditto my earlier replies. These particular companies are high on the list of the last companies who should complain about economic unfairness. They are all serious milkers of the monopoly profits.
Re: (Score:2)
The argument is spending $4BN on an unneeded power generation plant. Demand hasn't increased to require the new source, so to make use of the new wind facility, the power company will take existing power plants offline to balance the power generated to the power needed by customers.
Imagine your family had two drivers and two cars, then dad comes home with a third car, a Tesla. While both of your family's first two cards were paid-off, now you have a $50K car loan. You've increased transportation costs, but
Re: (Score:3)
They are worried about blackouts.
But not worried enough to build their own battery storage for said blackouts.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, do they not have backup generators and UPS in their mega data centers?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ditto response. Shut it down if a data center becomes too expensive. "If you don't like my opinions, I have other data centers", with apologies to Groucho this time.
Actually, from that odd perspective, I would even think that the giants should be delighted at anything that will screw some of their smaller competitors who can't switch to other data centers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, the country that this is post is about, the ARES company is already working on storage. They have a few projects underway.
All the Americans need to do is up the scale. Usually that is not their problem.
Re:wind and solar need storage for low output days (Score:5, Informative)
Windmills can't be started spinning by the wind. >
Both my grandparents who are farmers disagree with you on this "fact". The windmill closest to me is laughing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's exceptions to every rule. The big multi-megawatt, three bladed, windmills that most people would think of today as a "windmill" can't start up with wind power. Even that likely has exceptions when winds are especially powerful.
The many bladed windmills used for more than a century to pump water can be started from wind power. They gave up a lot on efficiency to be self starting.
There's been a lot of research into wind power to increase efficiency and what we have with the common three bladed wind
Re:wind and solar need storage for low output days (Score:4, Interesting)
He's showing his lack of understanding. I don't know of any wind turbines can't start spinning from wind or that use grid power to start spinning. I do know of wind turbines that require grid power to operate.
One case is when the wind turbines use asynchronous generators. These can only supply power in a narrow speed range (speed is regulated by blade feathering mechanism, generator is taken offline when speed is out of range), they consume rather than generating reactive/"imaginary" power, and they can't provide synchronsiation, only supply additional power. Hydroelectric plants using asynchronous generators have the same issue.
The other case is that you typically have a bunch of auxiliary systems that require power to operate. The blade feathering mechanism will fully feather the blades if it loses power to reduce the risk of overspeed damage, so you need power initially to unfeather the blades so they'll start spinning in the wind. If it's a setup using solid state electronics to feed generated power into the grid, you need power to operate the converters. There's a whole bunch of control and monitoring gear that needs to be running to ensure the system is operating in its safety envelope, which all requires power.
You do generally need an external power source to bootstrap a large wind generator, although it could be supplied by a diesel generator or a (rather large) battery rather than the grid. But that doesn't mean that McMann actually knows what he's talking about. He's showing extreme ignorance as usual.
Re: (Score:3)
Did you bother to even Google his statement? I'm sure it's not applicable to every windmill, but he does seem to be factually correct about this:
"Ironically, many industrial-scale wind turbines require an electric 'kick-start' to begin turning. That’s what overcomes the inertia of getting the blades to start turning." -- https://science.unctv.org/cont... [unctv.org]
And a whole series of related answers: https://www.quora.com/Do-wind-... [quora.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So kick start the farm with a small windmill that can turn with just the wind from cold start.
Let it charge up your jump-start and it's happy days. There, fixed that for you!
Re: (Score:2)
The windmills are all connected to the grid in order to deliver power, so they can (and do) draw power.
Diesel generators also have starter motors, for a similar reason - they need an electric motor to spin up the generator to running speed. Cars have electric starter motors, too. I'm not sure why it's "ironic" for a windmill...
Re: (Score:2)
What problem do you think you fixed?
Windmills are used to bring water to the surface.
Wind turbines are used to generate electricity.
It's typically impolite to point out when people call wind turbines "windmills" it's usually obvious which they are talking about.
The OP was (obviously) describing a wind turbine but called it a windmill, and the first commenter countered that "windmills" don't need power to start.
This is a common type of thread on /. When someone is imprecise with their language.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the dumbest fucking thing I've seen on Slashdot in ages. Holy fuck.
You must be new here, welcome!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Natural gas is a "low grade" fuel, meaning it is difficult to store and transport
Depends what you mean by "difficult to transport", really. Once you build infrastructure, it's a lot easier to transport from oil, which is why there are country wide networks delivering gas to people's homes. These used to be for town gas which was made from coal, which had to be manually carted to people's houses.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends what you mean by "difficult to transport", really.
Indeed, it is all relative. Natural gas is easy to move by pipelines but then so are so many other liquid and gaseous fuels. We can get an idea with some charts on energy density by volume.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It's an arbitrary distinction to make between "high grade" and "low grade" fuels. In reality it is more of a gradient or spectrum. Coal is difficult to move around, which drove experiments in "synthesis gas". As convenient that might be for heating and
Re: wind and solar need storage for low output day (Score:2)
Re: wind and solar need storage for low output day (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As usual some Anonymous Coward comes along to spread FUD than provide any actual data.
How slow is "too slow" any way? You need to define your terms.
How expensive is "too expensive"?
Here's an IEA study showing nuclear power as about the same price as utility scale PV, onshore windmills, and natural gas CCGT.
https://www.iea.org/reports/pr... [iea.org]
Here's another study from Lazard showing nuclear power is about the same price as residential rooftop solar PV. If we can afford rooftop solar PV then we can afford nucl
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody wants nukes
Despite Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, Nuclear Power is actually quite safe, but because of a stupid Jane Fonda movie, China Syndrome, and a media that thought it was documentary for what happened at TMI, the public has no real understanding of nuclear energy or power plants.
Re: (Score:2)
In popular media from the 1950s and 1960s nuclear power was how we were going to bring the closest thing to utopia on Earth. In the 1970s and 1980s nuclear power was a convenient "bad guy", or at least a tool that only the "bad guy" would think of using. In the 1990s and 2000s nuclear power just kind of faded into the background. From about 2000 on nuclear power was treated more like a force of nature, neither bad nor good but just is, or an amoral tool, something that could be used for good or ill depen