Hi! I decided I would post a new thread along the same vien as my ealier one, but this one focused more on energy sources. Hope you do not mind :-)
Any idea or recommendations for energy in a windy, high desert setting?
Which would be better, more effective and, all in all, more awesome?
Solar or Wind?
Or do you have a prefered alternative which is even more awesome?
Any idea or recommendations for energy in a windy, high desert setting?
Which would be better, more effective and, all in all, more awesome?
Solar or Wind?
Or do you have a prefered alternative which is even more awesome?
-
Re: Solar, Wind, or . . . ?
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 10:18 AMI think it depends upon
1) how much energy you want to generate
2) how much money you want to spend
3) how mechanical you want to be
4) how year around the winds are
Arizona gets plenty of sun year round, I am not sure about the consistent rate of wind. Some parts of Arizona are windier than others, but it is not generally known for consistent winds. I currently live in Tucson, but have lived in Prescott, Sedona, Tempe and in Rimrock, which is just south of Flagstaff and none of those areas are consistently windy.
On a windless day you are generating no energy, which means that if you are off the grid, you might have to use a generator.
Now a combination of wind and solar might be good. But with Arizona's consistent degree of sunshine, I don't see any need for wind generation, unless there is a specific application.
My father, who was raised in the 20s and 30s, lived in a house in western arkansas which powered it's lights and radio with a small windmill.
Unless you have a heavy metal band, typically your major electrical needs are going to be cooling, possibly heating and the major appliances. . .hot water heater, refrigerator, washing machine.
It is best to take a look at your needs, the environment, and then make your decision about what system you want.
-
Re: Solar, Wind, or . . . ?
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 10:40 PMDepends on how much of your electricity you want to replace with renewables... and how important getting back your investment in renewables is to you. Going TOTALLY off grid is very different level of expense than partial... and both solar and wind are rather expensive with long pay back times. Also how fast you want to move. Wind tower location is more critical than sun and usually a one year history of wind data is a prerequisite.
If it's awesome you are going for and you have relatively deep pockets. without a need for quick payback... get a 1.8 KW Skystream 3.7 wind turbine and 1-2 kw of solar electric. NOT a total off grid experience... but definitely awesome...:>)
Renard -
-
Re: Solar, Wind, or . . . ?
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 8:54 AMIt also depends on how much habitat you wish to destroy. Those giant windmills destroy acres of habitat. It's always amusing and pathetic to me how the city folk all rally around the windmill cause, and yet, they insist on destroying my home in order to make energy cheaper for THEM! right now there is a huge battle between the King Ranch (along with local area ranches) and a private energy company who wants to build windmills through I highly sensitive bird migratory pathway. No one ever talks about the miles and miles of torn up ground that will be incurred because they have to bury thick cables to attach the windmills to the collectors. No one mentions the lost acreage of prime wildlife habitat to gravel roads necessary to access each and every windmill placed. No one ever mentions the ugly side of windmills, yet it's a really big deal for our rural communities who have to suffer the losses so the big cities can continue to live in opulence. Shame on them. Build the windmills on top of their ugly sky scrapers, they will use less plastic, steel, and rubber running the cables alone! And they won't destroy vital and rare habitat. AND, they won't risk the extinction of the vast number of endangered plants we have in this area only. -
-
Re: Solar, Wind, or . . . ?
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 9:28 AMWendy, I understand your pain, it seems like these "sustainable" practices such as solar energy and windmills, eat tons of land!--and no one seems to mind except the people who have to live there, Near Palm springs there are huge windmill installments, the desert isn't particularly beautiful but it really mars the landscape. I think solar energy is only good if it's on rooftops that are not being used.
Arizona has tons of sunshine and tons of rooftops that are not being used. I hate to think they would gobble up even more of the desert to install huge solar panels when we could install them on the roofs of houses.
Humanity is only just cracking the surface of the choices we will have to make regarding energy production. -
-
Re: Solar, Wind, or . . . ?
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 10:37 AMAnd, yes, wind power makes sense in big cities, because tall buildings make their own wind currents (much like the mountain basin in Palm Springs does). Wind power from sky scrapers seems like a perfectly good way to harness a "natural resource" (that we made) and put the power right where it's needed.
-
-
Re: Solar, Wind, or . . . ?
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 10:39 AMwind generators can also be built in wind tunnels which also produce a venturi effect. . . -
-
Re: Solar, Wind, or . . . ?
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 5:55 PMOn a strickly cost per KWatt produced basis wind is much cheaper than solar. Of course if you don't have wind or sunlight that is another matter. If both are abundant than wind is cheaper than solar.
As for cities. Skyscapers don't create wind. They actually change the laminar airflow of the iwnd into tubulent flow. Turbulent flow makes a wind generator more inefficient. So wind power in cities is not the best way to go.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Solar, Wind, or . . . ?
Fri, May 23, 2008 - 7:28 AMgood questions...
i need to generate not only my household electricity, but also sustain a high watt sound system for weekly use...
i have often thought about windmill, but know there has to be sufficient wind to do so
and i have heard that solar really is ineffective in generating much power unless you put as much into it as you would pay for a small home here in arizona... -
-
Re: Solar, Wind, or . . . ?
Fri, May 23, 2008 - 10:20 AMI think a lot of energy needs can be dispersed simply through good building design and proper siting, without additional cost.
Retrofiting existing structures to get the same effect may be a whole other story, however.
-
Re: Solar, Wind, or . . . ?
Fri, May 23, 2008 - 6:22 PM<i need to generate not only my household electricity, but also sustain a high watt sound system for weekly use... >
If you want to do this you need to generate quite a bit of power. Your best bet is a combination of both. Wind to keep the cost down and solar to generate when there is no wind. You have no choice but to also but in a large battary bank to stoe energy for when you need to run your sound system. It is going to be expensive there is really no way around that. You want to use lots of power you have to invest lots of money at the current stage of solar and wind power available to you.
-
Re: Solar, Wind, or . . . ?
Fri, May 23, 2008 - 10:13 PMrooftop solutions are a compromise, straight up...
without a specific unavoidable and well justified reason, it is only extra loads over design in wind, traffic, and thermal stresses.
in a desert application, the opportunity to remove heat from a water cooled collector may in fact be very appropriate in energy managment, altho only if design loads and the expected life of the structure are considered.
high watt sound> switching power supply amplifiers are extremely more efficient than the standard semiconductor configurations.
although they are more expensive, difficult to find, and complex to service if they fail...
hysteresis losses in the conversion from AC to DC before the audio power sections are reduced, and as much also in the improvement from 'pure' thermal pollution of the output section heat sinks found in standard (even professional pa driver) power amps.
the key word in specs is 'switching amplifier' and 'switching power supply'...it refers to the fact that in the power supply, higher peak voltages in the waveform are switched on only for the section of the wave requireing them..
the matter is usually that for any given speaker output current, the amplifier (power section heatsink) dissipates the power from the supply instead of the speaker which converts the current to work. in the case of a switching amplifer, that voltage is not maintained on the power supply until needed (at the wave peak), and so does not have to be pumped into the sink as heat in order to maintain fidelity of the gain and input signal.
they are complicated, expensive, and hard to find... but much more lightweight, and extremely more efficient.
in a hi-watt application from solar power... i cannot imagine any configuration where a switching supply would not be more responsible.
-
-
Re: Solar, Wind, or . . . ?
Fri, May 23, 2008 - 11:34 AMI think the ultimate answer is "yes"
Solar craps out at night and you have to over-produce power plus store it with limited lifetime, bad for the environment batteries.
Wind requires a LOT of terrain to power a house (several trees at current output), but can work all night.
So, I think the answer is to get enough wind power (one or two trees) to power the house at night (keep the fridge running), and enough solar to power the house during the day (just enough, too). With both running during the day, you get an excess of power for those time you have to run power tools, and maybe enough to sell back to the electric company.
Instead of selling off the excess, you could also go with a kinetic battery. Have a water pump that only turns on when you are over-producing power, that fills a raised reservoir of water (yes, like a water-tower). Then, if you need a little extra energy, have the water flow through a turbine to generate more power. Use the water on the lawn, or for bathing, or just collect it in a lower reservoir to get pumped back up later. -
-
Re: Solar, Wind, or . . . ?
Fri, May 23, 2008 - 11:40 AMOh, and this can get expensive, but you do have options for converting all of your appliances over to DC, high-efficiency, sustainable. I used to work for Gaiam when they were buying out our yoga company. It was actually a very cool place, morally speaking, to work.
www.gaiam.com/category/ec...en+living.do -
-
Re: Solar, Wind, or . . . ?
Fri, May 23, 2008 - 6:01 PMThere is no such thing as free energy. All forms of energy. I still think wind is cleaner than coal or nuclear, but the biggest issue is to stop the growth of our energy consumption. There is no totally green way to use too much energy.
-
-