ronwagn

Severe Drought in the West Will Greatly Reduce Electrical Production from Hydroelectric Turbines.

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

US land based wind is mostly in the  middle of the country. The ocean just off of the highly populated east coast is shallow and very windy. The plan for NYs first wind farm is to have the cable come onshore next to Coney Island and be trenched directly to the middle of Brooklyn. 

wtk-60m-2017-01.jpg

The best wind resources are offshore oilfield doubt but it’s also more expensive to access them.  Getting land based resources is cheaper, so even ‘lower yield’ ones can be more economic before offshore is worth trying to do.  
 

A large scale map like this one also fails to adequately show concentrated areas of high quality wind.  This is common especially in areas with a lot of geographic relief like the east and west coasts.  Every ridge and peak and hilltop has potential that greatly outstrips the local average.  

Offshore wind will probably still be developed especially on the east coast where the ocean floor is shallow and crowding is more acute however. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Nonsense. We're the people with all the fancy education, remember?

California is planning floating wind farms offshore to boost its power supply 

An illustration of each in an ocean, showing how lines anchor it to the sea floor.

Northern California has some of the strongest offshore winds in the U.S., with immense potential to produce clean energy. But it has a problem. Its continental shelf drops off quickly, making building traditional wind turbines directly on the seafloor costly if not impossible.

Once water gets more than about 200 feet deep – roughly the height of an 18-story building – these “monopile” structures are pretty much out of the question.

A solution has emerged that’s being tested in several locations around the world: making wind turbines that float. In fact, in California, where drought is putting pressure on the hydropower supply and fires have threatened electricity imports from the Pacific Northwest, the state is moving forward on plans to develop the nation’s first floating offshore wind farms as we speak.

Oh those decades old wind farms that they have no plan how to recycle after the blades must be replaced! You people jump before you think, know wonder have huge budget deficits and people fleeing the State! Bunch of yuppies and illegal pot growers! And if you’re not part of a gang you’re most likely going to get chopped up on the side of the road.

CA is nothing more then a Petri dish for failed experiments on Social engineering! Has the greatest gap of wealthy to non wealthy and you simply walk by the non wealthy trying not to step in their shit on the public side walks, UNLESS, UNLESS you’re an illegal then they will put up up in a hotel and pay you to watch cable and how to illegally file Federal Documents to screw every LEGAL people that entered the Country. It must be the WATER or LACK OF that have you people stupid! 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The Maine ban is nothing. State waters only extend 3 miles. 15 miles is the developing standard for off shore turbines.

Yep, the legislature did not want to ban wind: they even said so. They just want it to stay 3 miles offshore, to allow the lobstermen to work near shore. a better headline would have been "Maine requires wind turbines to stay 3 miles offshore".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

The best wind resources are offshore oilfield doubt but it’s also more expensive to access them.  Getting land based resources is cheaper, so even ‘lower yield’ ones can be more economic before offshore is worth trying to do.  
 

A large scale map like this one also fails to adequately show concentrated areas of high quality wind.  This is common especially in areas with a lot of geographic relief like the east and west coasts.  Every ridge and peak and hilltop has potential that greatly outstrips the local average.  

Offshore wind will probably still be developed especially on the east coast where the ocean floor is shallow and crowding is more acute however. 

Offshore has some additional advantages. A seaside factory can build and ship turbine blades and other very large components by barge or ship, with no size constraints. It's like building oil platforms. You can therefore make them much larger, which works well for offshore wind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Offshore has some additional advantages. A seaside factory can build and ship turbine blades and other very large components by barge or ship, with no size constraints. It's like building oil platforms. You can therefore make them much larger, which works well for offshore wind.

Sure all of that is true.  It also contributes to higher initial capital expenses which is why land based wind is preferred to sea based if all else is equal.  Offshore installations are typically a factor of 10 or even 100 more in cost than land based ones.  They have to have outstanding energy production potential to be worth it for oil wells or for wind turbines.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

I would say that the Residents of Colorado have first call on that water and NOT California who has access to an ocean for Dessalination whereas Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada are land bound.  +25% allotment to California schlepped across the desert to LA should be eliminated if you asked me.  Yes, technically Colorado River abuts Cal, but it gets zero water from Cal... so.  Time to redress water realities from the early 1900's.

There was an early proposal (from Powell?) that western state boundaries should be based on watershed divides rather than arbitrary lines on the landscape. That would have made more sense for water law IMO.

"Wishkey's for drinkin'.  Water's for fightin""!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, turbguy said:

There was an early proposal (from Powell?) that western state boundaries should be based on watershed divides rather than arbitrary lines on the landscape. That would have made more sense for water law IMO.

"Wishkey's for drinkin'.  Water's for fightin""!

When they split up the water from the Colorado river they didn't base the water split on watersheds or state lines though - heck California isn't even IN the Colorado watershed.  They made the split based on who was paying for the project, and (at the time) the complete and utter lack of demand for water in some of the states that made the split.  Now you have some states who are 'haves' and some who are 'have nots' with no regard for where the water goes physically or what the present day demand is.  Will it change? probably not, because the haves aren't willing to renegotiate with the have nots.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

15 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

When they split up the water from the Colorado river they didn't base the water split on watersheds or state lines though - heck California isn't even IN the Colorado watershed.  They made the split based on who was paying for the project, and (at the time) the complete and utter lack of demand for water in some of the states that made the split.  Now you have some states who are 'haves' and some who are 'have nots' with no regard for where the water goes physically or what the present day demand is.  Will it change? probably not, because the haves aren't willing to renegotiate with the have nots.  

If a state can place a severance tax on petroleum resources, why not on water resources?

Edited by turbguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, turbguy said:

If a state can place a severance tax on petroleum resources, why not on water resources?

Because they signed it all away in a treaty already.  Maybe they colloid have chosen to tax it at some point in time but they can’t any longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2021 at 7:19 PM, nsdp said:

Several things they can do.

1. drain Lake Powell.  Seepage losses thru the lake walls and bottom is greater than the domestic water requirements of Los Angeles. Glen Canyon only produces 60 mw of hydropower.

2. Eliminate the interbasin transfers from  the Colorado River to City of Denver at Mt. Elbert.

3. Remove domestic irrigation systems for lawns and shrubs.

4. Double water rates for every 15,000  gallons of additional use.

5. Post names of water wasters on the front page of local paper.  The Express News and the Light  posted Clint Black for using a million gallons/month.  He stopped quickly.

6. Ban construction of new private swimming pools and refilling existing private pools.

POST NAMES, BAN PERSONAL CONSTRUCTION OF SWIMMING POOLS!!!! Your a fucking communist, Go ahead SUSPEND THE CONSTITUTION, BURN BOOKS, Your in dire need of mental help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

9 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Unless you live right next to the ocean, ALL waste water is directed directly back into fresh water reservoirs be it lakes or streams.

True, but we are talking about a much smaller environmental buffer and a more closed loop.

"Direct potable water reuse"

Connect the sewage treatment plant effluent pipe to the drinking water treatment plant inlet pipe.

Less drastically, have the effluent line a bit upstream of the intake pipe so there is a mixing zone. Currently cities take their water from upstream and put their waste downstream (if they have a river).

Edited by -trance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

Because they signed it all away in a treaty already.  Maybe they colloid have chosen to tax it at some point in time but they can’t any longer.

Treaties in this country don't seem to mean much, if you ask Native Americans...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

I would say that the Residents of Colorado have first call on that water and NOT California who has access to an ocean for Dessalination whereas Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada are land bound.  +25% allotment to California schlepped across the desert to LA should be eliminated if you asked me.  Yes, technically Colorado River abuts Cal, but it gets zero water from Cal... so.  Time to redress water realities from the early 1900's.

That case would end up in the Supreme Court. I think California would prevail due to their large population. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

6 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

Sure all of that is true.  It also contributes to higher initial capital expenses which is why land based wind is preferred to sea based if all else is equal.  Offshore installations are typically a factor of 10 or even 100 more in cost than land based ones.  They have to have outstanding energy production potential to be worth it for oil wells or for wind turbines.  

The cost factor is much lower. 

Lazard has the midpoint of offshore at $86 compared to a midpoint of $40 for onshore:

 

 

image.png

 

Projections are for offshore wind to no longer need subsidies in Europe after 2024.

Ten things every investor needs to know about offshore wind power -  Schroders global - Schroders

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, turbguy said:

Treaties in this country don't seem to mean much, if you ask Native Americans...

That was a long time ago, and related to a different situation. States in the union clearly have equal standing to one another.  More interesting, is that the treaty to divide the Colorado river waters was ALSO an international treaty between the US and Mexico which was ratified by congress.  It could be changed, but it's the highest level most binding type of international treaty/law which is acknowledged by the US constitution so it won't happen quickly or without considerable effort.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The cost factor is much lower. 

Lazard has the midpoint of offshore at $86 compared to a midpoint of $40 for onshore:

 

 

image.png

 

Projections are for offshore wind to no longer need subsidies in Europe after 2024.

Ten things every investor needs to know about offshore wind power -  Schroders global - Schroders

The cost factor per killowatt hour is lower, but the actual amount that has to be borrowed up front for offshore projects is usually larger in absolute terms compared to the smaller and potentially less lucrative land based projects, and they often have longer payback times as a result which increase the uncertainty associated with financing these projects.  

 This limits the number of organizations that can potentially fund offshore wind energy programs, and in the meantime 'low payout' quick capital turnaround land based wind fills the gap.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, -trance said:

True, but we are talking about a much smaller environmental buffer and a more closed loop.

"Direct potable water reuse"

Connect the sewage treatment plant effluent pipe to the drinking water treatment plant inlet pipe.semi or arud.

Less drastically, havewater   the effluent line a bit upstream of the intake pipe so there is a mixing zone. Currently cities take their water from upstream and put their waste downstream (if they have a river).

Because of the chlorides and phosphates present in treated water, this is not a viable option when the climate is semi-arid or arid.  you ever notice the ring around he tub(lake) Very toxic to vegeta

 

9 hours ago, RichieRich216 said:

POST NAMES, BAN PERSONAL CONSTRUCTION OF SWIMMING POOLS!!!! Your a fucking communist, Go ahead SUSPEND THE CONSTITUTION, BURN BOOKS, Your in dire need of mental help.

Only Schickelgrubers children would call me a communist.   See if you can figure that one out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ronwagn said:

That case would end up in the Supreme Court. I think California would prevail due to their large population. 

Mt. Elbert is an interbasin transfer (Colorado River to Mississippi River) Pacific Ocean to  Atlantic watershed  and subject to renewal (in your dreams) in 4 years by the International Boundary Commission  Treaty between the US and Mexico.  The US has shorted Mexico by about 14 million Acre Feet cine 1974.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, turbguy said:

If a state can place a severance tax on petroleum resources, why not on water resources?

Louisiana tried that in 1980 with the first Use Taxs an got handed their ass by the Supreme Court. Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725 (1981)  I don't think there is an exception allowing taxation for boundary Waters of the  US (OCS lands)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, nsdp said:

Because of the chlorides and phosphates present in treated water, this is not a viable option when the climate is semi-arid or arid.  you ever notice the ring around he tub(lake) Very toxic to vegeta

 

Only Schickelgrubers children would call me a communist.   See if you can figure that one out.

Many Germans we traders to their country! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, RichieRich216 said:

Many Germans we traders to their country! 

Yes Dietrich Bonhoeffer  was executed for his part.  I met Martin  Neimoeller at a Lutheran rally in Weisbaden in 1978. I will not be silent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nsdp said:

Yes Dietrich Bonhoeffer  was executed for his part.  I met Martin  Neimoeller at a Lutheran rally in Weisbaden in 1978. I will not be silent.

Are the Israeli’s looking for you for your past?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 7/20/2021 at 11:11 PM, RichieRich216 said:

Artor e the Israeli’s looking for you for your past?

That is a really dumb statement. I would not be meeting Pastor  Neimoeller if Mosad was looking for me. My only contact was to receive an award in honor of my gradfather Righteous Gentile. Righteous Gentiles: Non-Jewish people who, during the Holocaust, risked their lives to save Jewish people from Nazi persecution. Today, a field of trees planted in their honor at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem, Israel, commemorates their courage and compassion

Edited by nsdp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nsdp said:

That is a really dumb statement. I would not be meeting Pastor  Neimoeller if Mosad was looking for me. My only contact was to receive an award in honor of my gradfather Righteous Gentile. Righteous Gentiles: Non-Jewish people who, during the Holocaust, risked their lives to save Jewish people from Nazi persecution. Today, a field of trees planted in their honor at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem, Israel, commemorates their courage and compassion

Best story is the one you stick too…Never ever change a detail!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crying a River, Oh wait they don’t have the water flow. 🤣😂🤣😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.