A Really Big Butterfly

Hello Bwire, I have lived around this nation. 12 years in SC, 14 in NJ, 10 at Lake Tahoe, and most of the remainder in Florida, that is except for the winter I lived in Ketchum, Idaho, (Sun Valley) to many. We get nice winds in sunny Florida, but some of them are hurricane force and some are tornado force, and we must add to that, we are considered the lightening strike capital of the US. Therefore wind turbines, except for the country living persons, just isn't a really good idea, here.

I survived a 15 day experience while living in NJ when ice, sleet, and snow, combined to pull down much of the high tension lines around the area that we lived in, about 15 mi south east of Philly.

I do under stand the efficiencies of diesel fuel vs propane and NG. but the gaseous fuels can remain unsued for your entire lifetime and stil be available for use. They do not go bad. A little heat tape will prevent freezups. Diesel requires that you prevent water from collecting within the tank, requires that you also provide against alge growth when not used over a long period of time.

As a licensed Building Contractor, I have done many different types of projects other than just building homes and commercial buildings. I just needed that License to qualify to bid these many other kinds of work. Of course much of the work is sub contracted out but the General Contractor is the ultimate party responsible, so you surely must realize that the General Contractor had better be aware of the many things that can go wrong, and make sure that the subs get it right. There is not many things worse than having your dewatering pump fail and fill the hole your are working in with ground water. I think you get the picture by now.

Cheers,

TooMuchFun

I'm sure you're a knowledgeable individual about fuel storage. I would like to indulge LNG but alas the closest depot is sixty miles away. I keep diesel at about 60°F without algae and without temperature fluctuation no condensation either.

I do not know anything about the area where you live bwire, however when I was living and building in the Greater Lake Tahoe Basin, I found that NG was available to most locations via very high pressure flexible pipelines. I was quite surprised to find it available in an area where one cannot push a spade into the ground with out striking granite bolders. These lines are not very large but are buried about 10'/12' deep and tho rather small, the volume is accounted for through the high pressure.

Now with the Tahoe Basin being located high in the Sierra Nevada Mts., a hundred or more miles from the closest sea port (SF), with a basin floor at about 6200 ft and everything one can walk on, or build on from 6220' on up to 6800', and no NG wells known to be close by where would one suppose this resource originates? I never bothered to find that answer when I lived there but I suspect that it was piped in from places like Wyoming, with the pipe lines along side interstate 80, that would be about 1000 mi.. On the other hand, there are known NG deposits under sea off the California coast, and it may originate there, or could be shipped into the Oakland side of the San Fran Cisco bay in a liquified state, and dispursed from there, only a hunderd or so miles as the mag pie flies, but from sea level, up through the heavily forested mountains and over the summit at about 7400 ft. through one of the few passes into this region. I point this out simply to show that NG can be made available to anyone, either as a gas, or liquified.

As for your ability to keep your diesel fuel at a constant 60 degrees F., for you that is great, but try that in Alaska.

My father was an inspector at one of the re/heating and pumping stations on the Alaskan pipeline, so I learned well that anything can freeze if it Gets Cold enough.

Cheers,

TMF

From what I could tell NG has its place, and Wind has its. Thought Wind needed some advances in design, but as existing needed improved Grid connections from where it was most practical. About where I'm at with that.

Well it would have come from Wyoming but Chesapeake sold off about 70% of it NG to BP (Canada) last early last year so it could be coming south near the "Peace Garden" now.

I tend to agree with Transcendian in the all in moderation adaptive methodology rather than over stipulation of rigid guidelines.

The original post suggests that a large infrastructure wind turbine project may create a butterfly effect - interfering with the wind flow and creating turmoil thereafter. Further suggesting that a wind infrastructure is a 2030 goal of the DOE. May I suggest that controlling the weather in any fashion is a probable weapon and such a project may fall under the DOD? Under "weather wars" can be found many blogs that really get into some interesting reading and in light of the trickle down effect I might also suggest that the subject has even infiltrated CR4.

Good morning Woodrooster!

Unless you have been posting as Guest, you are a late commer to three Blogs that seem to have run their course. But just in case you have just arrived I suggest that you review the following, as they all have evolved down the same trail to the point that one can hardly continue to deferintiate one from the next.

See; Free energy myth, Really big butterfly, and De' ja' vu All over again!

About your comments. Yess we know that controlling weather can be useful as a war tool, could possibly destroy economies, and likely interfere with the movement of materials and troops, etc..

It could, if severe enough, cause death to whole segments of societies, not unlike the gasing of the Northern Iraque communities. The problem with tampering with weather is how do you stop or reverse what you start, and how will the rest of the world view such a method of fighting a war. Sorry, I do not see the DOD as a player in this issue.

As for the DOE however, our Govt. has done very little to promote the construction of better electricity production with the exception of "Grants" of huge amounts of our tax dollars to do study after study to justify even more "Grants" to those who wish to construct a minimal number of new power generating facilities.

This latest Democratic Conglomerate to gain total control of the White House and Both Houses of Congress and the Peoples Republics of California and West Texas, will now throw billions of dollars of our taxes into the most costly free energy ideas anyone could possibly imagine. "Common Sense" will be reduced to less than an after thought.

One needs only to look at the areas where all of these Wind Farms, thousands of them, are destined to be placed, to understand that this is just another way for those who own much of it privately as well as the parts controlled by the BLM to find a use for land that is not very suitable for Ag. uses other than growing cattle and hunting. Those who do not understand the impact that this constant wop, wop, wop noise that is the result of air rushing off of the tips of these huge propellers, may have on wild life, are likely to find out too late their desire for cheap, differently produced electricity will come at a price that we cannot afford. Wind is simply not a reliable source of power for producing electricity, the equipment can be subject to catastrophic failure, as was shown on the Discovery Chanel and Bricktop posted a link that everyone who believes this Big Wind Fairy tale should review.

TMF

So your point of view is that this is not so much a matter of bending the wind to our will, as breaking it, so to speak, by the politicians, lobbyists, big money interests, et al (whoever al is)?

Yes Enviroman!

Toomuchfun says! Don't use my tax dollars to chase your dream and destroy flora and fauna along the way.

In short and to the point!

"DON'T PISS ON MY FOOT AND TELL ME IT IS RAINING"

TooMuchFun

Good Afternoon Transcendian, Et. al.,"supporters and others alike.

Your concept of slowing down the wind turbine is a good idea, but to make it work would require a complete redesign of the wind turbines that are proposed. These machines are designed with the aid of computer generated 3 D cad programs. What is proposed is a machine that is "best" capable of taking advantage of the "average wind speed" for the proposed area, from some where in Texas to somewhere in Canada. It will not be just a single line of turbines, and nowhere has it been published for public review just what these promoters have in mind.

Can anyone imagine what a hundred thousand or more wind turbines will look like placed in a meandering line extending over a thousand miles long and maybe as much as 500 miles deep in places. These machines will not be placed resembling a stationary military marching group, but will be arranged like chicken pox, or measles all over a huge land scape. Now go back and re-read the link that Bricktop provided and imagine what that level of polution, both noise and petroleum based scattered over that much land. Compare that to the oil spill in Alaska waters of a few years and know that there would be no ocean to help with the cleanup. Imagine how many miles of roads it will take just to be able to construct and then maintain a wind farm this large. Consider what these dirt roads will look like and the maintenance it will take to maintain and often rebuild whole sections of said road after destructive storms and resulting wash outs. Then add the thousands of miles of wires and supporting towers that will be needed just to connect this mess to a grid to anywhere.

The idea behind this is the wind will always be blowing somewhere, so at an estimated 20% to 38% performance capability we would need 3 to 5 times the minimum quantity just to get to an estimated 90% performance, and that is just for the wind turbines, now add in the roads and high wires. Consider the damage that several tornadoes could do to an enterprise that large and congested. This is where the economies of scale vs the scale for destruction compete with each other and the "American Tax Payers" get to piss away good money after badly spent funds on a hair brained idea. Consider now the millions in grant funds that will be given to those proposing this idea to develop it and this also is tax payer money and presently considered we the tax payer will not own it.

Now "Compare" that against miles of underground gas mains that only show up occasionally above ground that provide NG to the small towns as well as the great metropolitan areas, in sufficient quantity to not only provide for the production of electricity locally but also provide for heating, AC, cooking, refrigeration, etc. thus using the energy in the NG directly, rather than indirectly to produce electricity to do the same things.

Folks I am not a "naysayer", I am just a regular guy who is using his God given ability to evaluate the whole picture and consider the best information available to me before making a determination as to whether or not free wind is a suicidal wind!

IMHO we are not even close to being ready for 500,000 sq. miles of wind turbines.

TooMuchFun

Common sense is a "Payne"!

Just about everything we do could stand a bit more thought, a little more study, before proceeding. Otherwise, and sometimes in spite of it, the "law of unintended consequences" stomps a mudhole in us and proceeds to walk it dry. But at some point, you have to stop studying and start doing. Even on a smaller scale as a test. They won't all be built in a day, or even probably a decade. If the problems mount up to an unacceptable level, STOP!

Good Afternoon Enviroman!

You are correct that this wind enterprise will not be built in a single decade, However I heard Baraca Obamma state repeatedly that "HE" expects this nation to be relying on "Wind Power" not political hot air, for 20% of it's electricity needs by 2050. Consider and quantify the energy needs today and then do the same at the current needed growth rate for the next 31 years and the picture begins to clear. Frankly unless we are to build a battery the size of Kansas to store this energy and release it as needed the idea is doomed to fail. It can only provide power to the grid as it is available.

Believe me when I say to you I understand the short comings of trying to send electricity long distances better than most as I have had to consider the quantity of available electrical energy available on a number of projects and I have had to incorporate these un for seen costs into my projected bids. I have reviewed specifications and drawings that called for the use of specific equipment at out of the way locations, without any reference as to just how the electricity to power up said equipment would be provided. Local Engineering firms sometimes omit these kinds of costs in their estimates of the costs of construction deliberately to make the overall estimate seem more reasonable. The low bidder must then specifically omit said cost from his bid and risk disqualification from the bidding process or he may have to eat these costs. There is no gaurantee that the Engineering firm will approve a change order to pay for these kinds of extras.

If you have never had the opportunity to bid multi-million dollar projects, and been responsible for all of the work, then you really do not know the risks you take!

"In this case you say go for it"! I say, "If it is so dambed good then do it with your own money" "on your own land". Show me enough to impress me that it can work and will not trash the millions of sq miles of land where it is located and beyond. I see the opportunity to not only trash these millions of sq miles of land but all ajacent land as these wind turbines are clearly an eyesore.

Presume that I own 200,000 acres of prime hunting lease lands ajacent to your wind farm and the noise and petroleum drives away the prime wild life, elk deer, as well as the predatory animals that help keep the reproduction rates in check, and my cattle leases become of no value to those who would normally lease it, and I could not parcel it out for selling off as small ranches due to the noise and eyesore issues. This is the end result, "you are going to pay me for the damages and my legal costs to collect," Then you are going to add this expense to your overall costs, and the price of your "free" or "cheap" energy just went up. The "TIME TO PREVENT THIS IS BEFORE IT HAPPENS".

I simply state that we should stop this now and do more research to prevent the extended damages this wild idea carries with it as un for seen baggage. You and other supporters can "Bet Your Sweet Ass," no one is telling you the whole story or as Paul Harvey says "The Rest Of The Story! The real information is available but you must look for it, they are not going to tell you about it or where to find it, as it is not in their best interest to do so! And they do not have to disclose anything that does not favor their interests. By now I have disclosed enough of the likely uglies that this enterprise carries with it to cause concern in any comprehending person. If you, Et. al., are not concerned now, then----

"Common Sense, Does Not Apply To You", and there is no law that states that you must have it or use it if you do! No Offence is intended by any remark that I make, only doing my thing and stating that in which I IMHO, "I see of believe."

I will be moving on now from these three topics that have ultimately merged into the same discussion. See You on the next Blog.

Happy Blogging and pleasant responding to all!

I am having TooMuchFun!

Very nice concise answer.

GA. But perhaps it's the approach that needs more study. Wind energy, NG, Nuke, Hydro, Fuel cell, etc., are all SOURCES of energy. How about addressing the USAGE of energy. For example, if you own a 50,000 sq.ft. house and I own a 10,000 sq.ft. house shouldn't you pay 5 times more for whatever amount of energy you use? I wonder if that wouldn't affect your choice of design. If I just keep some lights on to read, and cook breakfast; go to work, if I am lucky to have job, and make a measly $12,000 per annum at Walmart and you make over $50,000 per annum at your place of employment - well I think you should pay at least 5 times more than me! The user does not need an MBA to use energy. Why should you get to use energy at the same price as me. It's not fair - the playing field is not level!

Sounds like socialism to me. I'm sure the liberals will be all over this one.

Perhaps when Wal Mart buys in bulk they can pay more for the volume their buying...that makes a heck of a lot of sense...

Personally I think if you can afford to pay for then you can use whatever you would like. Considering there aren't many of us who live in 50,000 sq ft houses, I don't think we have much of a problem. The rest of us who live in...no not 10,000 sqft houses...1,200-2,500 sq ft houses are doing everything we can to save our money by reducing energy consumption.

DAG: It was only an example, early in the AM. I think, don't worry about the liberals too much - they seem to be more engrossed with who is going to be the first 'Secretary of Cool'. But, from your own analogy, it seems you are reserving the right to use as much of our shared resource as YOU can afford (in case you win the Lotto). Therefore, does the big cat get all of the milk in the pan just because it can, while the little poor starving, weak, cute kitten - go without? What if the cats got equal allocation? Would the big cat starve? Would the little cat burst? Or, would they all become Communists?

Is it going to come time for mandated home inspections to ascertain needed energy consciousness and mandated update requirements to existing structures. In US of A the HUD has programs available for grants and low interest loans.

Why don't we insist on energy compliance?

bwire: I'm just pleased that this blog has gone from: how many butterflies would be killed, devastation of the environment, problems with transmission, best fuels, best method of generation, etc. etc. to finally, USAGE and its different user perspectives. I threw a few wild opinions out there to prime the pump and to show how diverse voter perspectives are and how wild they can get. It seems many have conservation and economizing ideas. But it will take a larger engineering role to cover the big picture and I suppose that can start now. If you follow the threads of the various postings it becomes obvious that the momentum of perspectives can be very hard to steer once it breaks and starts rolling. I feel, that due to the technicality of the subject, which is based upon the resources presently available, engineers will be heavily relied upon to umbrella this subject, lead it and guide it. Flexibility, to make accessibility to the subject available to all the other fields involved has always been understood and accomplished by the Engineering field.

Good thoughts there WOODROOSTER. I must admit I was little grouchy yesterday morning...Especially since the inauguration of the president of cool (great metaphor, by the way).

Unfotunately, for any kind of freedom to work, those who are free must have responsibility. I'm afraid it is the responsibility that our country (the world perhaps?) is lacking.

Good morning Dag,

Freedom, "the real freedom" is little more than the privilege to choose. Nothing else. Hanging out, making more babies, for the govt, welfare system to support, is not freedom, It is a choice too many make. That kind of lifestyle enslaves the working public to support these kinds of attitudes, These lifestiles of laying around, just coasting provides no encentive for improvment or change. The time will ultimately come, (I hope not in my lifetime) that the public as a whole will rebell and only then will anyone see change.

TMF

DAG: As bwire suggested 'energy compliance' could be a great first step. It could be done by 'carrot and stick,' awarding those that comply and punishing those that don't. Help and assistance have to be given to those that can't. if we can accomplish the census - we should be able to scan the residential country for compliance and simultaneously, but on a deeper schedule, the industrial/commercial centers. A little help from the Pres., could include that ole Army " On sunday you are ordered to practice your religion! If you don't have one - get one by sunday. If you practice on Friday, or, Saturday - see the First Sgt. ASAP! With compliance to best energy usage we could save a bunch of resources. Then we will have to sharpen our minds and keyboards to make that system BETTER. But for the 'get go' that could be a 'brick in hand' and as TMF suggests, it might change some attitudes, which I agree with him, is sorely needed.

Good afternoon Enviroman, Transcendian, Dag, and all of the late comers to this blog, that don't seem to have read over the earlier posts.

First let me point out that there are millions of homes of every design and size ALREADY EXISTING in this nation, most of which are poorly insulated, and have older appliances in them that are "NOT" the most energy efficient. Low interest loans mean nothing to folks struggling to get along on their present income. Grants are only available to the few that can qualify for them, and that is only a very small portion of the population. No property owner in their right mine is going to take on any financial burden that will cause them to risk their home ownership or equity therein.

Many properties are rental units and the owners are not going to up grade insulation and appliances for any reason what so ever as long as there are folks that will rent as is, because that is all that they can afford, and there are enough folks like that out there to keep the property rental business as is.

Many communities have upscale housing developments and these property owners generally pay a disproportional rate of property taxes for this nice home in these subdivisions. Though these homes are larger they are not necessarily any better insulated and the appliances not the most energy efficient by current standards.

To expect these home owners to go out and renovate these millions of homes simply shows your ignorance. It is not going to happen. I generally find that those who come this blog with these kinds of stupid remarks blaming others for energy inefficiencies have skeletons in their own closets. Get real, get a life and get informed.

The least "dirty fuel" that we have available in quantities that will last us for the for see able future is NG. It is cost affordable and available around the world. It ships as compressed NG very safely. It can be off loaded far enough at sea so as not to even require a sea port facility, and be piped inland as far as necessary. Further it can be used as is, no refining necessary. If we are to convert every home to the use of NG, just how much electricity do you think we could save? Maybe enough that we would not need to trash the "Great American West" with wind turbines.

Our investment dollars should be going toward finding ways to be safely mining the cristalized hydrogen that is in abundant supply beneath the sea. That supply seems to be endless.

As for the nuclear power plants, it is simply not practical to build them "just anywhere". Therefore, long transmission lines must be constructed to carry the energy produced, and this carries with it the inefficencies of energy losses that occur when electricity must travel long distances by wire. On the other hand these losses can be minimized by creating NG fired power plants more local to the communities that need this electricity. This way we do not have to produce enough electricity to over come transmission losses. Just so those of you who do not really understand the huge quantities of electricity that is lost through transmission, I will relate to you a problem I faced when bidding a really nice contract that never happened because of an insurmountable issue.

The contract was to provide for dry storage in an existing, huge storage facility. This was to be done by providing electricity to a distant isolated building that would contain dehumidfing equipment. To do this I would have to provide transmission lines approximately 400 yds. from the location where the electricity entered the property. At 200 yds, we were already down to only 80% of the initial current provided, and the further we went from the original source the losses were magnified. The costs to provide high tension lines and the restrictions included to conduct high voltage closer to the area it needed to go and then use a step down transformer, like the one outside your home, was simply cost prohibitive. I suggested NG but was informed that it would be great but was not available, the cost of LP gas was out of sight. The contract was never let.

Though NG needs to be piped the rights of way are no more difficult to aquire than those for high tension lines, and for the most part the pipes remain out of sight, and this is not the case with high tension electrical wires. Buy converting our energy users to direct energy as is available through NG, we are reducing the need to promptly rush forth with all of these wild ass ideas like depending on the breeze to blow when and where you want it to.

TMF

Anyone remember what it was that I said about "Common Sense". "What it was, was football": Andy Griffith

Last time I was on set with Andy, he was pretty cranky too. The guy at the Security Guard House at entrance kept asking who he was, so he moved. Mining is not safe. Nuclear Power is not safe. A few volts lost in transmission is not unsafe. 400 yards is nothing at all from my experience. If Rights of Way were so easy to get El trains would run along all the Corridors. In matter of fact I've looked into it. That was part of the reason I suggested you collect waste for your gas generating Biodigestor. I can't think of anyone on the site in these discussions that has said you are completely out of your mind to recommend a use for Natural Gas. Give us a break and get off the Wind Hate. -Its not the total solution, but, neither is any other resource. 5 percent geothermal, 8 percent wind, 20 or whatever is current now for Atomic, tide power with hydro is easily pushing 40. The rest is now coal and oil. Seems sensible to change that to me now. P.S. I recognize my figures are off since geothermal in the US is not much at all. Just trying to be Cheery.

Agreed! Good answer!

All right, have not Nuclear Power Plants been completely redesigned, and is this not the main case of the proponents for its employ? Sometimes you have to ask yourself why they don't put nuclear wastes back where they came from? Anyway I don't ask myself where to put the wind. Wind is not a flaw of our planet. Actually the entire modern age came from knowing how to sail against it.

I asked of bricktop but got no reply may you could? Do the research format conclude same result for vertical and horizontal turbines? I think not.

"Do the research format conclude same result for vertical and horizontal turbines? I think not."

Why wouldn't it? The paper holds true for whatever the design.

Perhaps and reinforces our need of synergistic systems.

Thanks

Toomuchfun: Actually, I will standby MY post in its entirety. Unless, you are T. Boone Pickens - I think it adequately covers whatever is said about the subject in anybody's blog, however, its focus is a reply to #98. I assure you that I always log in as the WOODROOSTER; a name given to me by my parents.

I give you a GA. I will be going back over all of the posts on this and the other two blogs that are titled differently but are carrying the same messages. I usually do this, now that I have gained a little respect from my peers, I fee that I owe the good responses a little recognition.

TMF