A Really Big Butterfly

We've been building for centuries now, at a massive scale, all sorts of tall structures.

Trees in a forest will have the same effect. (we are removing them)

According to this study, the question remaining is, since how long have we been doing it. Or are we doing it at all.

When steam trains came about there was a cientific theory that stated the human body could not withstand speeds over 80 MPH. People would die.

First i haven't read the paper referenced but it appears logical..A good study would include literally the effect of all these moving blades on airborne life forms such as butterflies,birds,bees,etc...The butterfly effect on the biology of the planet could be signifigantly impacted...Has any one information/direction to a study of biota found at the base of these enormous wind turbines...I'd appreciate a link..

There are other ways to persue wind power,that i've looked at briefly..

http://www.invention.net/papp.htm , http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2003/0168860.html

both described an interesting variation on the theme using pressurized air....Allways more than one way to skin the cat .Being human we tend to follow the herd first... our growing pool of scientists go where the money appears to be..Really they (scientists) seem to be more like civil servants ,or court entertaineers than explorers of possibilities lately..Regards..Marty W.

martywolf,

Very few bugs if any are capable of flight above 35 feet

Absolutly not true...I did a paper in grad school back in mid seventies USING DATA GENERATED IN THE EARLY NINTEEN TEENS TO MID NINTEEN FIFTIES INDICATING INSECTS TRAVERSE AND DISPERSE ON THE WIND TO GREAT HIGHTS AND DISTANCES WATCH SWALLOWS IN MID SUMMER FOLLOW THE INSECTS UP AND DOWN THE SKY

REGARDS>>>MARTY WOLF

An itsy bitsy spider looses a thin string of web that catches a breeze and swoosh heaven ward it soars

Sailing and flying are bugs of a different color

Are they really..???... Marty W.

This guy says heights of 1.5 Km...

http://ufbir.ifas.ufl.edu/chap27.htm

The Mamouth Cave out in the south western U.S. of A. is home to thousands of bats. Scientist were befuddeled for years as to just where these bats were feeding at certain times of the year.

They were discovered by accident by radar feeding at around 10,000 ft above sea level on insects, I think moths, that were migrating on the winds form the northern latitudes to the southern latitudes. In fact many insects are so light that any strong thermal could reasonably carry them aloft and keep them there long enough to travel around the world, if they were to become trapped in global currents that carried that far. We know that they would likely freeze but insects have been deliberately frozen and have survived upon thawing out.

I believe that wind turbines have a place in the effort to provide affordable energy, but I also that their use should remain restricted to those areas that are so far away from any other resonable sources of electrical energy that they are realistically the better choice. AS; I stated elsewhere, wind turbines bring to the table a lot of problems that their promoters conviently fail to expose to the public. The same goes for the acres and acres of solar panels. I do however see where the concaved mirrored solar collectors could be used to provide enough heat to make a well developed absorption cooling system function during the daylight hrs., and possibly provide enough heat into a large concrete heat sink to keep it functioning at night. While expensive to construct in the beginning, such a system would have a low maintenance factor and eventually pay for itself and provide for long term property value improvment. The "hot rock"/"cold rock concept would likely work well for both heating in the cooler months and cooling in the warmer months. By using the ammonia to cool a concrete sink for the summer and to heat another sink for the winter seems like a workable idea to me.

TMF

I thought that the fresnel lens horizontal tracking systems dependent on computers to track and heat had been demonstrated as more efficient than PV solar, or wind. PV still is going to have great potential since it has no moving parts. From what I know High Voltage DC transmission is required for inequities between motive sources, especially as relates to wind. However Tidal and Wind are reliable on the coasts. In fact Natural Gas is renewable as TMF has pointed out. Actually every city or town sewage system has wastes that if put in the right places will make gas. In fact it does appear that the varieties of Solar Generating systems have reached maturity. Natural Gas systems are near maturity. There are contests in the Tidal Power and Wind Power systems. The contests in the Wind Power, and the Tidal Power are related to unintended harm to fish, birds and bats. There are river and stream designs for water power that operate at low rpm, and are not essentially blenders when fish are involved. Last I knew the microwave beam down of power from space was dangerous regarding the Ozone layer. So far no one has chimed in on my thread question regarding the mix of tech by percentages for the overall US Power Grid, which I have expanded to address the potential of gas. Say we go with 20 percent from Wind, and I say that there needs to be some reengineering there similar to what has been done with fresnel horizontal solar thermal systems, how about then 30 percent from Solar, and then combine the hydro and tidal to get 35 percent. That's 85 percent. Geothermal is not well developed here in the US, but if we look to Iceland we might get it up to maybe 5 percent. There is 90. Fill in transitionally with Nuclear and Gas, and we might get through the bottleneck while we round out and advance the tech and systems. I do think that Solar in all its permutations has reached great potential and maturity and do say that PV is though ineffcient regarding the output of panels, it is attractive due to the lack of moving parts.

I am advancing my Grid theory to apply it to sewage gas production so as to make small Grids.

Good evening Transcendian,

It is getting late but I feel that your latest post is worthy of a reasonable response. Thin flim photovoltaic panels seem to be getting a lot of attention now days. The stuff that I am reffering to is the material that is manufactured to fit between the ribs of standard standing seam metal roofing. Provided that the building is orientated in such a direction as to catch a great deal of the suns rays most of the year and the prices come down to something more reasonable this can be an excellent method to provide at least some suplimental power for battery charge/recharge. The thicker panels are likely to remain too expensive for most average homeowners and remain less efficient to the point that only the wealthy or die-hards will make any significent investments in them. The solar consentrators that have a parabolic shaped collector show the most promise. However these are expensive and are subject to substantial damage from high winds. Regardless of which solar method one chooses, wind will always be a threat. 30% of our energy being dependant on solar is a huge risk to take. I would feel that until the concept is better refined and can somehow be placed at places like the top floor of parking garages and the roofs of large industrial buildings, etc, with the Industrial parks being layed out in such a fashion as to encourage the placment of solar anything in places that utilize surfaces that otherwise only get used for keeping the weather outside, solar, at least in mind, deserves only a 3/5% position on a scale of 100 for all forms of electrical energy. As for the small hydro systems, that is ok for the homeowner that also has a back-up plan like the commercial grid, or an inexpensive to operate standby generator, something that can run on NG or propayne. Any energy that might be fed back into the grid is fundamentally not to be considered except for the few dollars it might put back in the property owners pockets.

As you state, geothermal is not well developed here. However ones energy consumption can be significantly reduced if they will install an underground system for use with a heat pump for heating and cooling a well insulated building. This sort of energy efficiency could be coupled with some solar and some small wind generators to make the property owner less than dependant on the grid. Hower this idea is not for everyone. Geo using the hot flowing mud or water from deep within the earth is not a very reliable idea as these areas are less than stable and could have significant sizemic activity that could easily wipe out such a system. Therefore I place little or no value on this energy production either.

As for hydro, we already have a large number of rivers with one or more dams producing power now. In many cases significant ecological damage has been done to our natural fisheries. So long as we can find other ways to reliably produce electricity, I feel that it is in this nations best interest to do so. Most of our coast line is already inhabited with fishing and boating going on when ever and where ever the weather permits, especially on week ends and holidays. There are very few places that can reasonably be considered as suitable for energy produced by tidal action that would not interfere boating by the public activity. Remember, that these boaters spend a lot of money for these boats, their upkeep and storage, and tax dollars fall right on top of all of these expenses. Considering the few places where tidal energy production systems might be installed are simply too few to make these worth much in the way of development dollars. Just how in the world do we recover the investment dollars paid to scientists and engineers for their time and effort in developing this kind of system.

Landfill gas recovery is still in its infancy. Yes it can be and is being accomplished but not in considerable quantities. Many landfills are not all that large and can only produce enough gas for minimal industrial uses ajacent to these landfill sites. If pipeing this gas over long distances becomes the norm, it likely will reduce any revenue returns to little or nothing.

Regarding NG. The expense begins with the discovery. That is already in the can. The next expense comes with the right away/easement for the pipeline. Much of that is already also in the can and powerline right aways are a realistic likelyhood, along with condemnation procedeings if necessary. Said gas is needed for multiple types of uses, that include residential as well as commercial needs right along with the electrical energy production. It is when we look at the many different uses for the NG at almost any location that we can see that the construction of the needed pipelines will have the costs spread over many functions.

As I mentioned before, the technology for NG fired turbines is already available and we need the electrical energy now. The billions of dollars that we should spend on NG development now will begin returning significant returns sooner than all of the other ideas combined. Some of these returns could then be diverted for development of the other concepts. It just makes good sense to do it this way. And it will help to get the economy turned around more quickly. Imagine 200 new gas fired turbine facilities going up scattered across this nation. And the spinoff being lower energy rates and local industrial developments being able to off these commodities to prospective clients creating more new construction jobs and more new job opportunities for the folks not in construction and the trickle down spreads around!

For my humble opinion I must conclude that 70 % +/- should go to new NG gas/electricity production facilities and 25% should be allocated for the mandated upgrades to existing facilities to the use of NG. The remaining 5% should be mostly going to solar first then wind and last and least to the tidal development. Just my humble opinion based on much deliberation and evaluation and consideration as a method of helping this nation to overcome the current energy crisis! No consideration was given to slop"in the hogs, or creating any more pork bellie futures!

What was it I said about common sense, the above is just a humble example that I believe will stand up to the closest scrutiny!

TooMuchFun

Your points about the jobs laying pipe is diminished by your mention of rights of way contests, that you are obviously aware of as impediments requiring condemnation or excersize of eminent domain to complete the system. (One of the reasons I recommended you look at the Sustainable Engineering Blog, and site specific gas generating systems such as those applied to Rwandan Prisons from German designs.) I've had to chase airplanes with no passengers or pilots around on occasion, and done some rigging, so tying things down doesn't really daunt me that much. Sure enough wind is a threat, but since I've had to deal with it, and done so, I don't factor it in as as great a problem as you seem to. Since Iceland gets something like 90 percent of its power from geothermal, I thought I was fair to give it 5 percent here in the US. The undulating tube tidal systems as opposed to the windtunnel underwater systems could well be put about on most any coast from what I can tell. Their orientation in the oceans is likely to be no more problem for mariners than sandbars. True enough from the guys at the Landfill that it is recommended that Landfill gas doesn't have to go far, but moving the gas is not really recommended then. Burn it where it comes out of the vents and you could turn turbines or stirlings to make electricity. I could go on myself, but for me now it is late as well. Like they say, Rome Wasn't Built in a Day. This subject is important and in one form or another has been replicated on CR4 threads and blogs. Now the other is what Degarvue again? DayJaVue, all over? How can we members combine the discussions into one that produces a real solution worthy of general international note? I am grateful to Global Spec for this opportunity to hash these things out, but would like to actually produce a real plan utilizing new stuff that fits into what is.

GA here for you Transcendian,

Good concepts are delayed for the naysayers building problems faster than they can be debunked.

You can tune a piano but you can't tuna fish

Let's see if a vehicle can be determined to sift dirge from the active commentary after comments are posted to keep the subject lean. Am I making sense?

You stated well the essence of the conversation and we can continuously use this type commentary towards development of synergistic systems.

A blot on the landscape.......no fan here.

It seems intuitively obvious that by removing some of the kinetic energy of flowing air (wind) with turbine blades the velocity of the flow will be lowered somewhat. And likewise, that by disrupting the flow path, the direction of flow will be changed. I guess it is comforting to know that an official study has been able to confirm this through modeling.

Yeah....I'm really comforted when 300 of the damn things are scheduled to be built in and around where I live. The guys who sell them are no differrent than snake oil salesmen. They come to my door every month thinking that somehow it's an honour for me to listen to their "save the world' speech. They don't seem to notice that I live OFF the grid. Rant rave bluster foam............

Green? Sustainable? BS.

Where's Don Quixote when you need him?

The last Don was seen falling from a home made wind generator tower somewhere in "Oregon or bust". The story going on around the Rogue River Valley is that right after he healed up from "bust'in his butt" he set out to convert the world use wind power. "Go figure!" "Misery loves company"! ?????

TMF

I'm all about being off the grid. Perhaps I will achieve off the gridness sometime in the near future.

However, I live about 20 miles from a lignite plant. I would rather see the windmills spinning than the yellow haze from the plant slowly drifting over my town.

Maybe we should concentrate on energy conservation rather than generating more and more and more....

I can sympathize. Conversely, I've always thought Clean Coal sounds too good to be true. I haven't done the numbers but I suspect that from it's point of extraction to eventual energy production is not as cost efficient as some would suppose it to be.

Take it from me......being off grid is not cheap on many levels. For now it's great if your needs are small and you lead a sedentary lifestyle in some backwoods cabin. Hopefully this will change if costs come down.

Conservation appears to be influenced by economies of scale and marketing ploys. Conspicuous consumption is more a need to be seen rather than having a utilitarian base point. I, for one, do not understand why anyone needs to own six Hummers (keeping up with latest fashion colour scale maybe?)....or grovel for bailout money from the lounge of the company jet.

I agree on the Hummer thing. What's wrong with a second hand Jeep...Oh wait...that's for those of us who like to do a little off roading or need it to get down the dirt roads that lead to our home...

I guess rather than be off grid, I'd like to just be capable of producing enough of my own energy to be self sufficient in the event of a catastrophe. I'm not a dooms day kind of guy, but it's nice to know you can take care of your family if you need to. In the mean time, sell some power back to the grid...Then the power companies can sell buy it from me wholesale and sell it to me retail...What a crock....OK I'm rambling now...

Ya......in a perfect world man..............

Good afternoon Enviroman, Et.al.!

Allow me to suggest that all of those persons who are really into this idea that we should and can produce 20% of our "E" needs with wind power ????????? take a look at the wind farm photo of the Tehachapi Mountains of California. {Wikipedia, "thanks"}

Then read the Environmental effects of wind power. You will be astounded at the damage to the environment that can be caused by these "supposedly" clean machines!

Compare this level of damage to the "Environment" and get back to me and we will again discuss the many economical advantages of having an NG "GRID" right along with our "High Voltage Transmission Lines."

While we are at it we could discuss the reasons as to why the Federal Govt. should have private industry construct these power production systems, yet they remain the property of the "Peoples Republic of these United States of America".

Sometimes it is just "TooMuchFun" "Thinking" about the {fallaceis} {fallacies} " [another one of those I before E or E before I issues] of attempting to force square pegs into round holes.

TMF

Chicago might be a good place for wind power actually. They don't call it the Windy City for nothing. Dense cold winds blow down the streets and stab you. I can understand why Obama might well, from his experience, owning a home in Chicago, feel that wind power has potential. Chicago probably could get 20 percent of its power from wind turbine generators. Off the top of my head that would be 40 percent in the winter, and 10 percent in the summer. They have a short summer. Every single thing is bound to have unintended consequences. You don't put up a Windmill because you want to kill birds and bats. You don't put up a Lighthouse because you want to feed cats. Thank God I have never hit a pedestrian, but I've wrecked or worn out a few cars. I was just trying to get to work or go see a girlfriend who made me some chili. My wife planted fake flowers in the yard. She is fond of concrete structures. Airplanes are pretty to me. I like to look at machinery. Tall buildings swell my heart. Architecture is the oldest art. I reject opposition to Windmills or Wind Turbines on the basis of what they might look like. I like to watch fires, for instance. As far as why Private Industry ought to be more depended on for energy supplies, or anything else for that matter, when properly enabled by fair laws, it does better than the government. Government certification of one technology over another has a mixed history that still recommends Private enterprise and invention over edict. Even in the case of the Tennessee Valley Authority I understand that they bought privately invented generators to put where the water would run. If it wasn't offset by the cold of the climate in Upstate New York, the low cost of HydroElectricPower from Niagria Falls would call all business to Buffalo, or Rochester. Okay so then, say 20 percent from Wind, then what percentage from Tidal Power, and what percentage from PV or PV thermal, and what percentage from Geothermal and what percentage from whatever else adds up to give us an excess? We need to know this. The answer needs to give more than 100 percent.

Good afternoon Tranny:

"That's what I said" It was my Idea, the Govt. should pay private enterprise for their technology and to construct these power producing, gas fired, latest available technology, turbines and associated stuff, BUTTTTTTT, since it is being paid for with our tax dollars, we ought to own it, and have a whole lot to say about the fuel surcharges that almost equal the energy (watts) that we are billed for. We also should construct enough extra NG power producing facilities to dampen the unbelieveable increases in our power bills as the result of these independants socking it to the end user every time OPEC decides to shove that hook a little further up where sun dosen't shine. Isn't that something like when the Govt. releases oil from the national reserves to calm down the runaway price of gasoline and diesel fuels. "Why NOT" exercise a little better control over the riseing cost of living. Electrical energy is a requirement not a luxery for life as we have come to live as dependants upon it. Sure there are some enterprising folks who have vacated their connection to the "Grid" but that is not an option for folks who chose to live downtown in tenaments and highrise condos and for those who really have no choice. I can say with a little certain feeling, that those of us who have left the city looking for a little room and peace and quiet would appreciate not being over run with over whelming quanties of refugees who cannot any longer afford the energy costs to live just where we would like them to stay.

TMF

"You Know!" That common sense thing again!

To Add;

Anybody thinking of saving on energy countrycosy costs by moving to a rural environment is either dreaming or loaded on utopisms...or just plain stupid.

I've lived off-grid for twenty years and do unequivocally state the costs are far higher than living on the grid. The maintenance is a constant factor when the equipment gets old. Lightning can put a stripe through ones' energy aspirations in a nanosecond. Battery banks are useless after five years. Things break down. Not exacvtly the life format for somebody who doesn't know a right handed screwdriver from a left handed one.

Thinking of firewood perhaps? At $60/ face chord it ain't cheap. Cut your own maybe? You'll need a years advance cutting, a good chainsaw and the means to get it to the house. Cut , split, load, transport, unload, stack, bring to house, stack in house = the weight of 7 chords per chord that is physically maneuvered from place to place.

Thanks, I'll take the grid anyday (and until recently was unable to).

And to think - our grandparents (for the youngsters, maybe great-grandparents) largely had no such choice. Wood stoves, kerosine (or whale oil) lamps, outhouses, well water (hand drawn, not pumped) were all staples of ordinary everyday life not too many years back. And horsepower meant exactly that - one per horse! Anybody care to trade for that?

Everything in its place in its day for its day.

Some of the old timers here, where I live, still live pretty much that way. This part of the province was only settled in the 1880's and much of the original pioneer heritage is still in place.

My wife and I lived like that and managed to raise a coupla rugrats. After 24 years I owe it to myself to go on-grid...."look, honey...it flushes".....sweetest words I ever heard.

Hey.....I still cut my bush using horses. Coupla Percherons and their driver. The close relationship between driver and horses is something to see.

Yeah Ducky,

I lived totally off the grid for 10 years. Mostly because of being cheap, poor, misinformed, stupid assertion of macho etc.

When I got remarried 6 years ago my wife insisted on electricity, running water etc. and now besides being too old to go back to that lifestyle, I find I have time for things I couldn't dream of doing before. Like building a hotrod, a new house, having the wood-working shop I wanted for years etc.

When I do the math, the $100 a month I spend for electricity is a pittance, especially when I figure my labor into the equasion. It helps that my house is less than 1000 sq. ft. and very well insulated. I heat it entirely with electric and don't even like the smell of wood fire anymore.

Too bad I now have to contend with the arthritus I'm sure was accelerated by said previous lifestyle.

We were young.

I still heat with wood but mostly hire the young lads to get (and stack) it for me. Otherwise it's the propane furnace.

Hot water solar collectors still in place though don't work that great in winter. Diesel genset for when the power goes out. Skidoo for when the snow gets too deep.......heh....you know the drill (i've seen the snow you get).

Hello Duck,

You left something out! It is about that face cord stuff! I bought several face cords of fire wood when I moved to Lake Tahoe back in 1977. It was delivered and dumped in my yard. When I stacked it in the rack that will hold 4 cords of wood I came up a little short, about one whole cord short. A word of caution to the purchasers of wood by the cord. A cord of wood is 4 ft. high 4 ft. wide and 8 ft. long, anything else is comparable to the power company ripping you off every time the price of oil fluctuates.

If you don't get it you are going to get ripped off. Face cords were created by the wood cutters to adjust for odd sized lengths to accomodate for the extra labor to cut up undersized lengths.

When you order a cord of wood cut into 16 in' lengths, a national standard for most wood stoves and fire places, you should get a full cord delivered. If you have the wood cut into 13 in. or 14 in. lengths you should expect the short lengths different from standard lengths to be considered by the cutter to be losses that you must pay for. But never should standard lengths be devoid of a 1/3 volume of wood and be considered a face cord/as a full cord.

TMF

About that common sense, I think that was compared to Navel Intelligence by "my Uncle who was in the Navy for 40 years, on active duty, shipping out in order, the same as all other sailors." "Believe it or not"

I'm sure stuff like that goes on everywhere. Hell, I've been taken to the cleaners also. The thing is that persons who engage in that kind of rip-off usually lose a lot of business in the end. In these parts it doesn't take long for word to spread.

I usually trade for a 60/40 split with the guys who do the cutting and stacking....depends on the quality of wood also.

Should we compose and post another question? My question is, what is the perfect set of energy supplies by percentages for urban and rural life with a consistent feed for vital tools of the modern era? Alright the skew is to be able to apply for renters and property owners. Everybody needs a back up. I am dependent on the grid. Still I do have some flashlights and a battery powered radio, and even in my rented house I have a fireplace. (It is a terrible fireplace, but still I can burn wood or stolen coal inside.) Your emphasis on NG did remind me that I have never had a battery powered heat source. The grid powered ceramic electric at my feet under my desk does help me be comfortable. Should I get a marine battery and an inverter and would that run my electric heater? Actually it does seem that whenever everybody owns something, nobody does. "Nobody put my eye out!" ,said Cyclops.

That heater wouldn't run very long on a battery.

You wouild be better off with electric socks (check Cabella's) and use an electric bench warmer (sporting goods stores) on your chair.

It's more eficient to apply direct heat than to heat the entire space around you.

Even heat tape for pipes will run on DC.

I knew that.

Hello Transcendian,

I was re reading through the posts and happened upon this one again. I was going to respond earlier but got side tracked "ranting & railing" about some other post, but I suggest that for back up heat you get a couple of tanks of propane. Unlike most any other petrol products, propane will keep for almost forever. I suggest that you look around for a heater with ceramic cones that capture the heat energy and disperse it a bit more evenly about the area. If you can get a small generator, 4 cycle, you can convert it also to run on propane, and have both fuel and stand by power with out worrying about the carb. getting all gummed up when not in use. When the hurricane season comes around here in Florida I always get at least 4 containers of propane, some for the grill and some for the generator.

A direct strike by a hurricane will generally knock out power for several days but the propane companies always have it in their trucks and can despense it from there. Just a little more of my useless knowledge, that is until you need it, then it makes me look like a fairly smart fellow.

TMF

I dunno if I buy that disruption of flow and path idea. Take notice of the manner mountains or tall trees effect wind flow and direction. The wind is not diminished by obstruction nor is it's direction of flow redirected except marginally; it merely continues while after going over and or around objects.

I've seen enough bad rain and snowstorms launch themselves out onto the eastern Colorado prairie over/around Pikes Peak, leaving Colorado Springs dry to not buy into the disruption of path. As for the energy loss, well, if something gains (the turbine rotor) something must lose (the wind), correct? If not please explain...that sounds like some "free" energy there.

Storms do not portray the same dynamic as wind

I'm with you on this one bwire. As tall as the windmills are, I don't think they're tall enough to disrupt weather patterns. It seems I've read that weather takes place at a high strata in the atmosphere.

I keep seeing the idea that regardless of what we do, we will make an impact on the earth. Unfortunately I think that's just the nature of our existence. In the long run I think windmills would have less environmental and toxic effects than coal.

Hello Dag,

It seems that far too many folks see the creation of wind farming as an almost pristine method of producing electricity. Frankly it can be anything but that.

I read an article recently that spoke of the thousands of acres of land surrounding commercial wind farms, " that are so badly polluted from the petroleum residues that get scattered all around these areas by the propellers effects on the leaking lubricants and hydrolic oils needed, for their operation, " that cleaning up this mess is almost impossible.

Further the vast majority of these, only partially informed folks, who are standing in line to throw money at this endeavor, like the Pres. Elect. doesn't have a clue about the realities of electricity. The energy losses are almost inconceivable to them and they don't understand why these energy losses occur. The fact of the matter is, that the further this energy must travel along the transmission lines the more energy that is lost. The result if these tremendous losses is that many more transmission lines must be constructed and many more generating facilities must be constructed to over come said losses. I am not making this up, ask any one in the business. Even in your home the further the electricity must travel, the larger must be the wire size. If it isn't big enough to carry that energy, either the wire will overheat and burn down your home or the appliance needing this energy will burn up.

The Pres. Elect and others support building a Wind farm from somewhere in Texas to somewhere in Canada, right through the high plains states. Ironically, some of our largest NG reserves exist beneath these same states.

Common sense, " (something that doesn't seem to exist in great quantities anymore)" seems to indicate that piping the NG to the areas close to where the energy is needed will provide for far less overall energy losses. The building of power generating facilities closer to the areas needed will require fewer miles of these high tension lines therefore less energy loss.

And will provide jobs for the laying of the pipe and jobs for the construction of the generating facilities and will provide permanent jobs for some folks operating these facilities. Further, is the availability of both NG and electricity are two of the most important considerations for the development of Industrial Parks, that perport to be clean facilities, that also attract clean industry.

Providing new jobs will help with the redistribution of the population from the over crowded areas that breed crime and cause the creation of gettos, as the people will follow the work. These same people will need housing and all of these things that are needed for life as we enjoy it in this great nation.

And NG is a far more efficient fuel for both heating and cooling a home, or commercial building, as well as cooking thus reducing the need for so much energy produced by power generation stations. Of course the producers of electricity won't like this part but we simply cannot afford to continue to pay for the astronomical costs to produce electricity with ARAB OIL.

FRANKLY; I have yet to meet the developer that is interested in building subdivisions, or developing new communities anywhere in the visual vicinity of the "almighty wind farms".

TMF

The only problem with common sense is that not very many people have it, or know how or when to use it!

In general I concur, but it gripes me to see a vast source of potential energy go untapped. From the FWIW Dept., someone applied common sense to an uncommon level when siting the project I am now working on. It's a two-unit NG power plant with a steam co-gen facility in between them, and it is located AT the pre-existing intersection of both a large NG pipeline and a major transmission line corridor (in fact, there's a HUGE transformer switchyard sitting just uphill across a road). Coincidence or accident? I think neither...

"The General sends his regards and wishes to thank you for concurring!"

TMF

Ahhh....The big picture.

In the back of my mind I kept thinking about the grease and oils needed in the nacell of the turbines and what would happen in the event of leakage. I have also considered the transmission losses.

I'm just wondering why nuclear power seems to have been abandoned. I realize that storage of the wastes is a problem, but otherwise it seems like a pretty good solution for generating much needed electricity.

" The General also wishes to thank you for your response." The problem with the nukes, is the expense in the manufacturing of the fuel, from the ore to the rods and then the cost of removal and storage for the next million or so years. Then we must also consider the neighborhood theory, "not in my back yard", that makes selling your existing home a real problem to overcome, having the effect of actually devaluing the whole neighborhood. Whether or not these facilities are safe or not is not the issue. It is the perception in the buyers mind that will devalue the properties.

TMF

I always try to see the whole picture, but sometimes it is difficult to see all of that through a key hole, don't you think?

That makes sense. It all comes around to property values...

I like the keyhole analogy, it fits.

But there are plenty of examples of vegetable (peanut, mostly) and other biodegradable lube and hydraulic oils suitable for heavy-duty use. That doesn't HAVE to be a show-stopper.

When the windmills first came into the Tricities they had major problems with gearbox failures. My Dad and others developed a lubricant to solve the issue. He says that the processing to do this with vegetable oils are much more demanding but it can be done and done well. Acid removal is one of the biggest issues.

Brad

Hello IVO,

I somehow feel that you are likely old enough or at least your Father is to remember the Glory Days of Racing when vehicles at Indy and many other tracks fuel the cars with methanol/ethanol which ever was available where they were racing and oil'dm with with a lubricant (laxative) called castor oil. If we are to use stuff like (de oiled food stuff) we would just move further into starving the world of food like it is today with the price of corn.

I am certain that there are places on this great big planet, like the Sahara Desert, or Tierra Del Fuego that are likely suitable for the use of wind turbines for energy, but somehow when I consider the up drafts and down drafts I just have a hard time wondering just how we will get all that scum off the beautiful mountains. Some folks can't see the desert for the sand storm.

TMF

Sure do - it's where the brand name "Castrol" comes from. Not that castor oil is really a "foodstuff"...

Ha! I think you're right about coal.

I think the idea is being spread around about being responsible for global warming to the end that we can then control our environment. But though global warming may be occurring it is because the core is heating up and we are not causing nor responsible and can in no way control it

While working on graduate physics (about 4 years ago), I attended the Friday seminar. The guys who were presenting were doing research on solar flux. They had analyzed data from as far back as they could. What they found is that the sun gets hotter and cooler in cycles. Small portions of the cycle run 11 years. The large portion of the cycle is 121 years. At this point in time the sun is at the top of an 11 and 121 year cycle. So basically global warming is occurring because the sun is getting hotter. One of the low cycles corresponded with the Ice age and the mini ice age of the 1700's. Furthermore, the last opening of the north passage corresponds to times when the sun was at the top of a cycle.

I thought the research was interesting, but didn't put a whole lot of stock into it. However, I have recently heard that Mars and other planets are exhibiting similar global warming trends as the Earth. Thus, you could definitely conclude that the sun is getting hotter.

Do I believe this? I don't know...but it something to consider to get the whole picture...

It's amazing how simple it is to draw a line in the sand based on belief. I'm with you on 'the whole picture'. Given that the available evidence of today still opens the door to speculation maybe the answer lies in the past.

It's an established fact that the Earth goes through warming and cooling cycles. I don't understand the major alarm. I'm all for conservation and not polluting the environment, but I think the emphasis should be on the ethics and stewardship rather than Mankind being a scourge to the planet...as the radical enviros like to make everyone think.

Hmmmm...Conservation with common sense...go figure.

God Morning Dag,

I awoke to another beautiful day here in Sunny Paradise. Funny thing about "Common Sense". It is available to anyone and everyone no matter your station in life. Some seem to be born with it others must learn it, but it is as real as life itself.

Like I often say at the end of my posts----- "The only problem with "common sense" is that not very many people have it, or know how or when to use it." I wonder why? The Govt. can't tax it or take it away. Your enemies could kill you for it but they can't get it. No one can give it to you, you must get it for your self, but it's there for the taking, free of costs, that is unless you are a slow learner or just to stubborn to accept that which is rightfully yours. If so, you will pay for it with time and experience.

I'm going to have a cup of joe before I fall back to sleep. "Now that is a good example of someone using what God allowed me to have, "common sense and a cup O' joe!"

TMF

[MY NAME IS JOE, THEY NAMED ME AFTER THAT STUFF]

Very Clever! Do you mind if I print your post for my students to see?

By the way, good answer!

Let me understand this, We can no better model the weather than we did 20 years ago with magnitudes of more data but we use these same models to extrapolate the effects of energy removal from the wind system. No wonder there is confusion.

If I remember my high school science correctly wind is caused by the Sun creating unequal areas of air pressure. This is modified by terrain and the spinning of the Earth.

The pressure gradient will equalize until energy is added to modify it.

Removing energy from one area will increase the gradient elsewhere. In other words if I have a scale of 1-10 over a thousand miles and I prevent the first 500 miles so it only has 1-4 not 1-5 then the systems next 500 miles is 5-10 not 6-10. causing a greater pressure variation there by increasing the wind between these two points.

Understanding the dynamics of a system is the first step in discerning cause and effect.

Granted I'm 18 with 29 years of experience so high school was a while back.

Brad

There is no such thing as free energy. Every form of energy conversion (Note that I said conversion as we really have no means of "producing" energy) has its drawbacks. Remember when nuclear was going to make electricity "Too cheap to meter"? Wind power is in the same place now. It is only a matter of time before the environmental watch dogs wake up and decide that the risk of weather modification is too great.

"U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) plans to derive 20% of national electricity from wind power by 2030"

That's a lie and a joke that's not funny. We have plenty of natural gas, why not use it:

Land_Based_Gas_Turbine

Hello Bricktop,

I give you a page full of "ATTABOY'S" , "But" I heard it straight from Pres. Barak Obamas lips, 20% of our electrical energy produced by "WIND" by the year 2050!

For this nations benefit, I sure hope that was just a lot of "political hot air".

TMF

The problem with common sense is that not too many people have it or know when or how to use it. tmf.

"Change we can believe in".......Jimmy Jones (lemming leader).

Here's an interesting site I've posted before when there's a discussion on windmills:

http://www.windenergy-the-truth.com/

Excellent but does this include that factors both horz and vert turbines comprehensively? No

"Excellent but does this include that factors both horz and vert turbines comprehensively? No"

????

????

?? One major detriment to efficiency of horizontal wind turbines is fluctuation of wind speed and direction. But it is the quickly alternating pattern of wind behavior which causes the greatest inefficiency in horizontal wind turbines.

Vertical turbine efficiency is not the slightest impacted by fluctuation of wind direction so the data is not deemed substantive across the the platform.

example: aerotecture, urban green

Fascinating. I'm going to have to read that one all of the way through.

What's really interesting about the plan to generate as much as 20% of national electricity from wind power is that once you exceed about 10% input into the grid from intermittent sources, you really start running in to serious control problems...

Are these problems without solutions?

Good morning Transcendian, I was just cleaning up on some of the blogs and decided to plunder through this one again!

You ask, "are these problems with out solutions"?

Here is the problem with billions of dollars of wind turbines that has no solution. Across the mid west this past week an ice storm has destroyed so many transmission lines that now millions of folks are with out electricity. Some are reported to be without this energy for three or more weeks. Some communities are with out water as the pumps are not working with out this energy, many are also with out functioning sewer as the lift station pumps are also with out it. Those who live out on the farms also have no water as their wells cannot be pumped without electricity.

Standby generators, can be powered by propane and or NG for far less cost than diesel fuel or gasoline, and can be sheltered from the in climate weather, and this fuel dose not go bad when stored like liquid fuels do.

So please answer this question! How in blue blazes do you or any one else going to protect all of these hundreds of thousands of wind turbines from "ICE" Storms that seem to occur annually in some areas. Consider if you will the hundreds of millions of dollars that must be invested into a wind turbine system that must sit idle when this energy is needed most. The same ice that causes aircraft to loose the ability to fly also prevents the propellers on the mighty wind turbines from functioning. Consider the millions of more miles of transmission lines that will also be exposed to these ice storms. We cannot protect the lines we have now, and certainly cannot protect any more new lines.

This is an primary reason to construct NG power gereration stations closer to the end user. The NG in a pipeline is not effected by "Ice storms" and "Tornadoes" and if well planed for, even most floods.

It doesn't take a lot of smarts to look at the potential dangers of depending on the wind for electricity, and anyone who can do the math will quickly realize that NG powered facilities will repay for their construction costs far sooner than Wind Turbines.

In short, $15.00 for a steak dinner is more attractive to me than $25.00 for the latest variety of "hot dog" with a propeller on one end.

TMF

Sorry, "just not enough common sense is blowing in the wind".

Hello Toomuchfun;

Where do you hale from mate? Not from a northern climate I suppose, we have used diesel fuel in very cold conditions and for long periods of storage between use.

Diesel as a fuel is more efficient for generating power than LP/NG and LP/NG will freeze up too.

I think we're barking up the wrong tree, we should be concentrating on ensuring our buildings are energy efficient first then we may develop efficient sources and the fuels to suit the need.

Many of our school districts have invested in wind power resulting in considerable savings to the communities concerned. Corporate and business entities can and do also construct wind farms for their uses.