Foundation: Each wind turbine foundation consists of a concrete octagonal footing 47 ft. in diameter and 7 ft. deep.
Footprint: 47 ft. in diameter, spaced 1 – 2,000 feet apart.
Concrete: 294 cubic yards – 439 tons per foundation.
Foundation: Each wind turbine foundation consists of a concrete octagonal footing 47 ft. in diameter and 7 ft. deep.
Footprint: 47 ft. in diameter, spaced 1 – 2,000 feet apart.
Concrete: 294 cubic yards – 439 tons per foundation.
I’ve had many clients lately wanting to jump on the geothermal heating bandwagon, especially when heating one’s home. I had one client install geothermal in his house, to the tune of $70,000 when a regular forced air furnace would have cost him about $10,000. (new construction) He will never live enough to break even on any so-called ‘energy savings’ with the geo-thermal. The extra $60,000 costs would have bought him over 30 years of natural gas. I suspect wind turbines and solar panels have similar pay back timeframes.
Geothermal cooling, on the other hand, as some great possibilities but for the 2 or 3 weeks a year the average home needs air conditioning…..
We need to develop more oil and nukes. Windfarms and solar panels aren’t the answer.
Heat pumps make economic sense in mild climates (lower mainland) where heating/cooling can be installed for a slight premium over a regular furnace/small roof top unit.
OTW the $70k should have gone into an R2000 type super-insulated envelope before considering a heat pump in more harsh climates.
Kate,
They make sense in isolated (very) areas adding on to a grid.
They are extremely ugly and noisy.
For Paris alone – it is estimated that for a population of 5 Million (Est) – it would take 25,000 = YUP!
I thought a polar bear died every time a cow or a sheep farted? I guess I’ll have to toss out that Sierra Club pamphlet.
when are the greenies going to figure out that the footprint is contained in the price?
the market alway always always wins . even if the country has to go bankrupt first.
Eskimo, your example is perfect. And no one on the left ever, ever points out the cost of these new technologies. The Green Shift is a prime example of outrageously costly, so called solutions.
Come on Kate. It is only 139 tonnes of CO2 per pad!
Well Eskimo on another topic ridicules the EU and the French. [BTW Eskimo DONATE to the Canuck 6] and then understand that France is over 85% nuclear power with a new generation of reactors coming on.
Germany and Italy are reconsidering their previous moratoriums and starting up old plants and building new ones.
Go figure for Eurowussies eh Eskimo?
Eskimo:
Your cost for ground source heating seems way out of line. Contractors I’ve spoken with and published sources, estimate residential systems to cost around $20,000 – $25,000 (costs are also highly variable since vertical loop systems can be quite expensive). That said, ground source heating usually doesn’t make economic sense for single family residential buildings. It often does make sense though for larger institutional buildings.
Hey LS, pay attention. On the other thread I called an English (not French) commedian a EuroPUSSY, not a wussie.
The main reason the French have utilized nukes is they have no petroleum supply, but hey, you can still be a pussy and own nuclear reactors.
Yeah, concrete is one of the major sources of man-made CO2. Funny how that’s never factored in or mentioned when promoting wind farms.
John B, my costs are not out of line. Dig out your yellow pages and call up any of the water well drilling companies and ask them how much it would cost to drill 10 or 12 wells 100 to 200 feet deep. Couple that with the $80+ per hour the plumber will cahrge you to connect all the pumps, your heat exchangers, etc. etc. and my costs are not out of line. If you live in Alberta you have to factor in ‘our’ dollar. (read: gouging)
This particular project was completed about 3 years ago, 2 hours northeast of Edmonton. Prices may have dropped somewhat, but the jist of my thread was the futility in going green for the sake of going green. If you want to spend your money to appease the green gods and pat yourself on the back, go ahead.
I’m using two deep water wells to cool a commercial project I’m working on. Technically it’s free cooling aside from the fact it cost over $20K to drill and develop the two wells. The equipment will cost about the same compared to regular cooling coils and condensors, but the client will save in operating costs. (Running a small circulating pump versus 240V air conditioners)
I also know of people who installed coal boilers in thier homes and out buildings. Two different people have told me that they only spend $400 a year on coal, but become quite reluctant to share the cost of the equipment. Once again, these two people spent that magical 60 grand.
An associated of mine (mechanical engineer) who designs geothermal systems refuses to 100% fit a commecial building with geo-thermal and always works in some form of conventional backup system, be it a gas fired makeup air unit or even small furnaces connected to propane.
It costs a lot of money to be ‘green pious’. I have a mid efficient Carrier furnace in my house and had change left over to buy my motorhome.
Hey LS, pay attention. On the other thread I called an English (not French) commedian a EuroPUSSY, not a wussie.
The main reason the French have utilized nukes is they have no petroleum supply, but hey, you can still be a pussy and own nuclear reactors.
LOL.. the Brits are Euros, Canucks have Candu (Pickering) and so are you a mutant from Three Mile Island?
In PEI they have wind turbines rising out of farmer’s fields. The power company only needs the easement for the foundation and transmission, not the entire property. In Cape Breton, NS power company has turbines in Glace Bay next to their coal-fired thermal plant. They don’t make any appreciable noise, and some are located in residential areas, within walking distances of people’s homes.
LS, you’re starting to sound alot like ‘new’, so I’ll leave you to you’re cyber wanking and I’ll get on with my day.
LOL ESKIMO – a MOTORHOME? Is/Was it a hybrid or a mutant? Did your sled dogs bring the coal home or was it a 2 cycle Ski doo?
Coal from around Drumheller>
BTW – did you donate yet to the KATE defence fund = PAYPAY?
France is the second largest EXPORTER of electricity on the planet. So all those nuke plants, with their waste piles are for generating profit, not keeping the French warm & toasty in their little apartments.
Now that’s pollution for profit. What would Tizzie Lizzie think about that.
Speaking of polluters and pollution where does the Liberal party get off with that 30 year old “air Inuit” there should be a contest. You know name Steffi’s Plane. I thinking “Pollute-Air”suitable “french” accent of course.
cheers Bubba
Wouldn’t it be smarter to use our expertise to clean coal better. The US has 200 years of reserves to power the grid. We aren’t natural gas poor either. Oh, and, don’t forget nuclear if the left would dismantle their barriers to using it.
We will be wedded to carbon based energy for a long, long time no matter how many fantasies the alternative energy folks come up with.
Is it just me, or are they missing the point here???
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4710608.ece
Fossils reveal that the landscape now deep beneath Illinois and Kentucky was covered in huge club moss trees, horsetails and ferns 309 million years ago. Once global warming had taken place 306.5 million years ago, the landscape altered enormously and the trees were replaced with “weedy ferns”.
Fred:
Re: “France is the second largest EXPORTER of electricity on the planet. So all those nuke plants, with their waste piles are for generating profit,”
Lawrence Solomon had an article recently in the Financial Post about this. France gets something in the order of 70-80% of its electricity from nuclear which is greater than its base load requirement (nukes can’t be turned down in off peak hours) so it sells its night time excess to neighbouring countries. The problem here is that electricity at 3:00 AM isn’t worth much and the French sell it at a loss.
“Not only does France export vast quantities of its low-value power (it is the EU’s biggest exporter by far), France meanwhile must import high-value peak power from its neighbours. This arrangement is so financially ruinous that France in 2006 decided to resurrect its obsolete oil-fired power stations, one of which dates back to 1968.”
McCain’s French kiss
you can raise a lot of corn or cattle between wind mills
Well, I call BS on Eskimo.
I contracted with Dwight’s Geothermal a few months ago, and the cost is not even close to anywhere near $70,000. Eskimo, your figures are flat out wrong. It would cost $70,000 for maybe a large industrial building or small hotel.
The total cost will be about $27,000, taxes in, for a horizontal loop and 5 ton system, when all is said and done. Considering that one year ago I got a new Carrier Infinity 96 and water heater installed for $7000, and Sask Energy quoted me $13,000 to trench in a gas line, geothermal is pretty competitive in my situation. A few more Sask Energy 40% price increases, and the system will pay for itself within a decade.
Considering that you also get free A/C, I am probably only a few years away from the break even point.
Posted by: jcl Is it just me, or are they missing the point here???
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4710608.ece
You mean this point?
“the point missed in the article is that this happend 300 odd million years ago and the climate change was far more intense than what it is now. why do we keep blaming climate change on humans when its clearly a natural phenomenon?”
will, grimsby, uk
They missed the point because there is no such point. No scientist has ever claimed that only humans cause climate change [and when they do it’s still natural]
The article, stretching things a bit, is trying to draw a parallel between late carboniferous and today — with these equatorial forests and Brazil now — and what happened to them as carbon dioxide increased from levels much like the present to much higher levels.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Earth to Dave… time for a reality check.
“They don’t make any appreciable noise, and some are located in residential areas, within walking distances of people’s homes.”
Have you actually been near one of these monsters? Put the Dipper Field Guide away and go and see(and listen) yourself. Or just call Ann Murray.
I’ve been there, done that in Alberta, California and now Nova Scotia.
John B:
Lawrence Solomon is nonsensical when it comes to Nuclear Power, either unclear on the difference between Baseload generation and Peak load or deliberately misleading. Others have explainded this better than me, but here is my go at it.
Nuclear plants cannot rapidly ramp down power generation, they form the Baseload of a power generation system. During times of peak power demand you typically use natural gas turbines that can be brought on line quickly, then shut off when the peak passes.
Solomon implies that France is backing away from Nuclear. They are actually building more nuclear plants. France made the energy security choice that they would not be dependant on large scale oil or coal generation with fuel mostly imported from elsewhere.
The fact that they sell power during off hours is not surprise, and I doubt they are paying people to take it off their hands. Some industries that have large power requirements could readjust their work schedules to take advantage of the lower cost power input.
While I respect Solomon’s work on the Deniers series, his nuclear arguments are less than half baked.
Back to the original source article, the one interesting stat I wanted to see is how much steel is needed to build a wind tower? That also takes a whack of energy and increases the Energy ROI and Co2 footprint even further. The info I have seen state that on a per delivered MWh basis, you use 10 times more steel and concrete than the same MWh generated by nuclear.
Dave in AB:
“The fact that they sell power during off hours is not surprise, and I doubt they are paying people to take it off their hands.”
They aren’t paying people to take it away, they are selling it for whatever they can get (i.e. at a loss). Check OPG’s (Ontario Power Generation) daily load requirements ( http://www.theimo.com/ ). Any capacity above the night time minimum is wasted if the source is nuclear unless you can find a market willing to take it.
“Back to the original source article, the one interesting stat I wanted to see is how much steel is needed to build a wind tower? That also takes a whack of energy and increases the Energy ROI and Co2 footprint even further. The info I have seen state that on a per delivered MWh basis, you use 10 times more steel and concrete than the same MWh generated by nuclear.”
This old canard has been floated around for some time. A couple of minutes research shows the following life cycle energy payback ratios for various types of generation. References from various sources follow and all are approximately consistent. The hands down winner is hydro electricity, too bad God isn’t making any more.
http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2008/04/30/energy-payback-ratios-for-electricity-generation/
http://www.hydroquebec.com/sustainable-development/documentation/pdf/options_energetiques/rendement_investissement.pdf
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/presentations/pmeier_energy.pdf
Kevin, Call me BS all you want, my client paid $60K (not 70 btw) approximately 3 years ago. His house is adjacent to a lake and he used wells approx. 200 feet deep. I’m not sure what the exact number was.
An associate of mine recently built a house (approx. value of 1.5 million) and the geo-thermal cost him $57,000.00.
Granted you may mind a cheaper price, it comes down to equipment and available labour.
BTW my Carrier cost me $1400.00 installed. (Furnace only)
John B:
Thank you for the links
But even if you look at the source material, the same materials issue gets raised. Reference Table 5 of http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/pdf/fdm1181.pdf Materials and construction of Wind still consumes 4 x the energy of nuclear. Nuclear takes the biggest EROI hit in the processing of the fuel (62%). Have to read further to see if this includes nuclear fuel reprocessing (which France and other countries do, and the US does not)
Another source of material on materials usage (this is one article among others):
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/07/per-peterson-information-on-steel-and.html
So the materials energy issue is definitely not a canard. Similar as what the definition of selling power “at a loss”. A loss compared to what? To what peak power could sell for? Solomon’s point still makes no sense.
I would expect long term usage shifts that will soak up that excess capacity over time. Plug hybrid cars (like the GM Volt) that could charge overnight could be one user of excess capacity.
Going back to the original issue, if you want to do large scale Baseload power generation you only have 3 choices: Coal, Hydroelectric or Nuclear.
As you have stated, you can’t plant Hydro dams anywhere. So it is either Coal or Nuclear.
There is no guarantee of wind being available when you need it, and there are infrastructure costs to build a stable power grid that has many producers (and I’d have to read deeper into those articles you referenced to see if they included power distribution material in the materials mix).
As they say…interesting times.
“CO2 Emissions
There are two very different sources of carbon dioxide emissions during cement production. Combustion of fossil fuels to operate the rotary kiln is the largest source: approximately 3/4 tons of CO2 per ton of cement. But the chemical process of calcining limestone into lime in the cement kiln also produces CO2: CaCO3 ‘ CaO + CO2limestone ‘ lime + carbon dioxide This chemical process is responsible for roughly 1/2 ton of COCO2 per ton of cement, according to researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Combining these two sources, for every ton of cement produced, 1.25 tons of CO2 is released into the atmosphere (Table 4). In the United States, cement production accounts for approximately 100 million tons of CO2 emissions, or just under 2% of our total human-generated CO2. Worldwide, cement production now accounts for more than 1.6 billion tons of CO2–over 8% of total CO2 emissions from all human activities. environmental building news
How cool is that. Quick, someone buy carbon offsets for the windmills.