The Free Energy Myth

I've posted this before on CR4:

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

Think twice before jumping on the municipal wind-gen bandwagon.

It is to day considered by correct people -not "green" politicians- that wind energy should not be more than 10...15% of the whole need. However the trend imposed is toward 20% which could generate due to the unpredictable wind magnitude to huge problems. An example occurred 2007/2008 in Germany.

I wornder why the Department of Engery said the "if the USA were to harness the wind in only 3 states they could provide 1/2 or more of the U.S. Engery needs. "

I realized long ago that multi-billionaire, T. Boon Pickens widespread dissemination for wind motivated electrical energy from wind farms, will inevitably earn him another couple billion. Providing his campaign is successful. His aim to fill up that west Texas desert is closing in. Granted, the wind blows more often in that vastness,which probably helps in the equation. Perhaps it's all hot air out there! (no offence to my West Texas buddies.)

None taken - whatsoever.

Here's a little more info supporting Bricktops info...There is a "however" to note in the article: http://www.physorg.com/news151066592.html

The Discovery Chanel just today published an article entitled "Home Wind Turbines Prove Ineffective", discussing a recent British Study. Industry mavens counter with the argument that the studied wind turbines were installed in the wrong places, that the suckers customers who purchased the wind turbines were "poorly advised" by the hucksters promoters of such devices...

I can quite believe that wind energy is not as "green" as many would have us believe, but now is the time to develop these energy sources before our oil reserves are used up and the "cost" of development goes from expensive to just completely impossible.....

You could say we are "in Beta Test".....

Hi Andy,

Recently here in the UK we have just experienced the longest cold spell for 22years with a lot of frost and minus 5 to minus 10 degrees everyday for three weeks, that is the time when everybody used a lot more energy that usual, but there has been no wind at all for that time, in fact it was noted as "dead air"!!!!!!!

Another fact is that this is usual when we get such a long cold spell, no wind!

Another fact is that last year with over 850 large wind turbines erected here in the UK they only produced 28% of their proposed output????????

All this has at last been noticed by both politicians and scientists here who are now claiming that wind power is a false economy!!!

Spencer.

28% is the amount of usage mentioned by many good sources as being par for the course......almost exactly. How right they were!!

Your belief that we are approaching the end of oil/coal/natural gas energy indicates that you may have fallen victim to the very point of Churchill's quote that you use as a signature.

Well put, you get a GA from me. The only thing I would add is that fossil fuel and nuclear power are the only power sources that can be installed anywhere to be effective. But that does not mean that the other approaches, when effective, should not be implimented.

Absolutely,

I believe there is nothing wrong with exploring any idea which may help or hinder mankind in general.

Wind is not constant.

Geothermal is limited to active areas that are located in unstable environments.

Fossil fuel we all know about.

Hydroelectric may be more destructive to the environment than all other types.

Photovoltaic works when the sun is shining and needs much more development. Currently only 3% efficient.

Nuclear scares the hell out of the general public, at least in the U.S., but it actually may be the best alternative of all. And please before anyone goes off on a rant about the safety of nuclear power. The arguments that I have heard, stem from 1950 - 1960 type technology. There has been a lot more development since then.

GRAY HAIRED OLD GOAT-

"the wind will blow somewhere all the time"- see the reference from Bricktop. This was a premise of the German approach, which resulted in significant problems with integrating to the grid, especially since the change in wind velocity can be rapid and extreme. Also, out in Northwest Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska- how do you allow for tornadoes? Lots of "free" energy in a tornado, if you can build something that can harness it...

Just a quick correction. There are seven different categories of power generation. The newest is hydrothermal, which is similar to, but substantially different from geothermal, and never before harnessed. www.marshallsystem.com

I had a look at your presentation and I consider that in some situations it is a true solution. I would be not as ptimistic as you are due to several problems as:

- heavy corrosion due to high mineral content of hot water

- stability of the long pipes as well in axial as in transversal directions due to dynamic adctions of environment, water has a quite high density so that the forces due to horizontal movements can be very important and this is only a quick look

- loses of temperature over the length

- impact on the ecology due to changes in the water temperature

- cost of investment and the high risk but this can be compared with off-shore drilling and seems to be possible to get a solution.

All the issues you mention are engineering issues. That's what engineers are paid for. They solve problems.

The heat issue is not really an issue at all. At a a flow rate of 3m/sec, the 2300m would be traversed in about 12 minutes. That's certainly manageable with today's technology.

The cost must not be compared to offshore drilling. Instead, it needs to be compared to the cost of a nuclear or other power plant.

The impact on the ecology is real and unavoidable. However, everything mankind does has impact on the environment. The only fair way to determine the impact is to compare it with the impact of coal, nuclear, or other generating technologies, and when you do, hydrothermal wins hands down.

I suggest you review the Complete Description page at www.marshallsystem.com/complete.htm

I thought we are on an engineering forum so that I mentioned "engineering" problems which make the project to be difficult.

I am really sorry that I cannot think your way. But I stay skeptical. I wish you luck but I would at your place, if you are older than 10 years, not to count on the revenues from this project for your old days.

I can appreciate the idea of using thermal sources due to a visit of Iceland where the partition between the plates is visible. One can have a foot in America and the other in Europe.

Nick, I've never pretended that there weren't engineering issues involved, and they are not insignificant. The promise of the abundant, constant, and highly concentrated energy from hydrothermal vents makes the effort worthwhile, though.

Imagine we're in the 1940's and I had patented the basic system that allowed an atom to be split. Imagine that no usage, peaceful or military, could be accomplished without utilizing my process.

Now further imagine that someone comes to me and says, "you know, this nuclear power thing is really great. I think I could power cities with it. How much would it cost to build a power plant, and how long would it take to build it?"

That is very similar to the situation I'm in now. I've patented the process, the gate through which hydrothermal energy will flow, but no one can know what will be encountered until the process begins. Then each problem is tackled individually until finally the whole thing works. It's the same process that was followed to build the first nuclear power plant.

This whole thread started about wind power, and everyone here seems to acknowledge the same fact...that the basic source of power, the wind, is unreliable (duh!) and highly variable (double-duh!), and it ultimately means that wind power will never be a viable addition to our energy needs because the source itself is unsuitable for continuous high level production.

Hydrothermal energy, as a source, fulfills all of that and more. The energy density exiting the vent is about 3.3 x 10^6 more intense than solar radiation, but even more important is that it is absolutely constant. That's because the mechanism that drives it is simply the weight of the water above, which is continuously forcing seawater into cracks and fissures in the earth's crust. That water is superheated by the magma and is returned as the geyser known as a hydrothermal vent. Because the weight of the water remains constant, the flow also remains constant.

Inventors as a whole are a lot like parents...this is their child, and they get defensive when someone says something nasty about their kid.

That's most definitely not me. I'm first and foremost a scientist. I'm not a scam artist like the wind promoters. They're selling something they know ultimately will not work, while I'm promoting something that I know ultimately will work.

I'll take any valid criticisms, and answer any questions posed, but up until now no one has demonstrated any reason for me not to believe that this is what I called the Holy Grail. It's constant, extremely dense, can produce power levels rivaling or exceeding those of nuclear plants, and it's renewable.

It will be done. It's just a matter of time.

DOES THE WIND EVER STOP BLOWING ALONG INTERSTATE 80 ?

I have seen it blow over fully loaded rigs. Some drivers over correct after getting hit by a gush and jackknife. Just driving that hwy is a real workout.

Windmills that could stand high speed gust and long term high speed runs would do great there.

Did you know solar panels put out higher voltage if kept cool. underwater

GA from me, you have your head screwed on right!!

I agree with Andy Germany... we are in the beta test of this technology. The fact is... everyone's comments here can be considered correct, despite which side you choose to take your stance.

Wind power is not up to expectations yet. Granted. But in order to get to where we want to be, it's necessary to go thru these painful phases in the real world. You can only go so far on theory, despite the best plans and analysis. So even though there is a wide range in the level of confidence in wind power, these unprofitable and uneconomical beta tests need to be risked by the believers, so that our knowledge of what works and what doesn't work can increase, and we can build off that. At some point, somone will be inspired by some event in this industry, and they may very well find The solution.

Meanwhile... failures enroute to sucess are the nature of the business. Don't you agree? Above all, we've got to keep moving forward, and cannot be stagnant simply because many people say "That won't work". It's very true that that may not work. But time is running out. Have to keep plodding forward and learning.

IMHO

"Hey, hey,hey. Time has been running out since time began." Frankly, I personally believe that we have a better opportunity in perfect the oxy-hydrogen generators to produce fuel from water than developing technology that is clearly inefficient right out of the box, and already is proving that it is ecologically unsound and frankly damaging to the neighboring area. Look at the links provided by Bricktop regarding the real impacts of wind generators and then get back to me!

Wind Turbines have their place, and that place is where there is no better solution for providing one with needed power to live off the grid. However it is hopelessly deficient in its capabubility to provide continuous energy as needed. It must also be complimented by some other source of energy production and storage medium. That is hardly a way to run the nation that uses more energy than any other nation on this planet.

TMF

"That Common sense thing fits here very well".

I think the main point that Andy Germany and OUt of Box Experience are missing with respect to Wind power is that it is inherently the least attractive of all forms of generating electricity. Wind is unpredictable and intermittent on both long scales (hours/ days) and short scales (seconds/minutes). The output from a wind turbine looks like a yo-yo going crazy. Even during "peak" generating periods, only a fraction of the actual power generated can effectively be harnessed. Turbines are best suited to run under optimum conditions. Even giving very generous allowances for what is "optimum", wind turbines rarely operate with these conditions. Advances in other areas involving energy storage, power conditioning and regulating, bearing live, and blade technology will take us only so far. Wind will always be the marginal and least preferred method of generating electricity.

I continue to have issues with the principle of anonymous guest posts. Particularly opinionated ones that inform me of what I am "missing", and speak their opinions as if they were bona fide facts. I can't appreciate debating a person who's behind a curtain.

Is there no way to have some type of identifier to be included with all posts? Even if the "guest" is not signed on?

I know, I know... this is hardly a new suggestion.

We (the registered users) sympathize. I think that there is no fix other than ignoring them as far as possible......

I agree, wind power is (at least right now) a technology that could at best only supply a small amount of our required energy. It will probably remain so, a "niche" product.

I feel though that we need to develope all possible technologies while we still have oil!!! Later might be difficult!!

The value of exploiting less than perfect technologies is the discoveries that lead to more perfect technologies.

Example: Pour money into the Photovoltaic industry, natural selection and competition WILL produce more efficient PV panels.

Consider all of the misguided legislation, poorly designed subsidies, and political hyperbole just part of the cost of doing business within the human race.

And there are happy benefits frequently overlooked; for instance the millions (billions) that have to be thrown into grid improvements. Do we not get a more robust grid less exposed to single point failures? in exchange perhaps I get to sell my panel power here in Arizona all the way back to New Jersey? (This example may suffer from technical deficiencies that are obvious to the author - try to take it in the spirit intended).

Personally I want to put cities on top of a giant Peltier with one end buried deep underground and the other high in the air. Then when the next stalled icy flow comes running down from the arctic I can make a bundle!

There will be lots of waste because exploration and humanity in general are lossy processes. But the only argument for NOT doing it is some limit on the resources to be thrown at it, and to my knowledge there is no such limit. Maybe we are discussing it in terms of the wrong resources?

Well put.

It seems obvious to me. Actually I'm not entirely sure what the nay sayers are proposing. Are we to abandon the technology altogether, because it isn't progressing as quickly as we would like? And only work on one particular (most promising) path?

Diversification toward a common goal, i.e. alternative energy, is the way to go. Wind, solar, geo, nuke, etc... sounds right to me. I think we are right on track. There are people who are passionate supporters of all of those, and none of them should be discouraged.

There are "naysayers" and then there are "sayers" who "say" "before " we throw unlimited public tax dollars "PORK" at a unique idea that has demonstrated that it "can" show utilitarian performance under workable conditions, we use the tools that are available to us, Computers, and knowledge generated by trial and failure, to first determine the effects of huge scale installations of what works in the minor scale applications.

Wind turbines that generate electricity are a very good example. While the small home made example can be made to function exceptionally well in some areas it may be impractical in others.

Ex. the wind volume at the speeds suitable for generating adequate power doesn't blow as effectively as is needed in all areas at all times of the year. Adding some solar panels will help "but" may not be enough to be cost effective. Now one must determine whether adding more wind generators, and more solar panels is more cost efficient than than adding a stand by generator, that should be powered by either LP gas that can be stored almost forever or NG if available. Either way there are installation costs to consider. At some point this becomes an overwhelming issue of "cat chaseing Tail" as one attempts to find the most cost effective solution, and still find a way to produce enough electricity to satisify current needs and allow a little extra room to add additional loads as they are aquired.

Further is the difference in the designs of these huge vs small wind generators. The small ones produce less noise, are less expensive to construct, require less room and maintenance levels can be acceptable, and generally can be located close enough to the load center to reduce energy losses that occur from the generator through the cables to the general storage facility that contains the storage batteries.

"So Where's The Beef." Well some of the problems show up when we throw in the "economies of scale concept." The fact that BIGGER and More, does not always work out to sustain economic values. There is the huge area of land that will be impacted by thousands of square miles of these, propellers that go wop,wop, wop with every revolution. What happens when the frequencies of the constant disturbance of the air align them selves so as to produce unanticipated and undesirable effects. Like when Ella Fitzgeralds vocalization breaks the wine glass. A particular inexpensive seal may underperform or even fail. It happened with the first turbine powered race car that was leading at Indy suddenly had an engine failure. A seal valued at about $1.50 cost this vehicle and its driver, owner and investors and supporting advertisors millions. A similar issue with these mega turbines could cause the release of many thousands of gallons of liquid lubricants to be scattered over many thousands of square miles of pristene flora and fauna. Remember that it was the failure of an "O" ring seal that under normal circumstances performed safely that failed just when the normal circumstances did not exist, and the decision makers decided to continue with the lift off. The Challenger exploded shortly after lift off, before the boosters released. The decision maker must consider not only the impact of failure on the manufacturers, supporters of said technology, and owners as well as the receivers of this commodity, but the impact of failure on the ecology. When Big money talks, the silent voice of flora and fauna, cannot be heard. "The risk is worth the rewards, that is until the tax payers ultimately pay in hard cash, to clean up the impact caused by prejudiced decisions."

Ecologically friendly "Renewable Energy" is anything but cost effective when it is rushed into production before "ALL" of the for seeable problematical issues are resolved. Inevitabally this is when you will find that there are no supporters of said technology, the fingers point in all directions, but the "who dun'its dissapear like the very wind they blew in on!

Bricktop: provided adequate evidence that wind turbine design is not yet ready for maximum exploitation.

I can tell you that with out any doubt, that you cannot put enough electrical energy produced by solar panels located in Arizona, In to the current grid, to provide enough energy to satisify the needs of one all electric home in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The efficiency losses in the uninsulated wiring that makes up the "grid" are simply too great.

This is the most obvious reason to provide locations for the power generators as close as is reasonably possible to the end users. Adding more miles and miles of coal cars to our already tired rail road system will only hasten its demise and will require billions of dollars to up grade. A good investment but not necessarily at this time.

Further by adding more NG fired turbine installations that all have a bit more than is needed in production ability scattered through out this nation will provide for some over load support in the locals that risk brown out and black out now. This of course will be as the result of preventing the efficiency losses incurred through the transmission of this energy over long distances.

It is always easy to devide the various issues of a big problem into various smaller problems for solving, but the results of the individual resolutions do not always marry up to a realistic resolution of the greater problem. Unfortunately, we then begin to attempt to fit square pegs into round holes. This is when the individual prides and politics result in failure.

TooMuchFun

Anyone care to comment about "common sense"?

And: we can put enough gold into a ship to sink it.

TMF

By looking at these wind-power projects it seems that those with money are trying to secure the market now so that in the end wind energy won't necessarily be as economical as they claim nor it will be all that echo friendly against birds.

It also appears to be more money driven than green and working for them as an employee whistle-blowing will still be prohibited - probably more then ever regardless the room for improvement.

I would not be at all surprised if companies such as Shell, Texaco, BP and the rest are in board rooms and back rooms dividing up the next gen of energy tech amongst themselves .

"Ok Texaco, you guys go with the Hyd cell refueling stations. BP you have wind technology. Shell you guys shift production to NG . And we all will distribute solar power feeds."

Or some such conspiring. Once these guys have the business blueprint laid out we will see a sudden surge in renewable availability at the consumer level.

cr3

You are correct of course, but you left something out Charley. That is the price that the end user will be paying for this Eco-unfriendly consortium of associated means to produce dirty green energy.

Get ready for the light green whitewash. By consolidating assorted so called green energy producing systems the blend of these production of energy methods will be mixed in such a way that the profits are divided amongst the controllers and are effectively hidden from the public eye by "Red Tape".

The public should prepare itself for another "End Run" similar to ENRON. Frankly, the High Desert/High Plains areas of this nation is not the best place to range cattle. In fact; cattle have to walk a long way to make a living there. Only in the high mountain valleys with some wet bottom land area exposed after the winter snow fall has melted does the very rich grass grow and this growing season is fairly short. One can almost see the cattle growing and fattening they improve so rapidly. Then it is back down to the plains/desert to try to survive the remainder of the year. The local fauna must compete with the cattle for the available vegetation and said vegetation is controlled by rainfall and the season cycles. The reason Cattle are there is because not much else can be put there that produces a profit.

The leasing of rights of way, by the BLM and property owners will put millions into the pockets of those who support this "Somewhere In Texas to Some Where In Canada" "Mega Wind Farm". These and other costs such as the millions of miles of high tension lines needed to carry these electrons across the Rockies, and the High Sierra Mts. will be added into the cost to get this energy to your homes and businesses. Now that I have pointed out just where these high lines will have to traverse, would anyone hazzard to guess just how much the annual maintenance costs will be. There will have to be a complete support system constructed just to maintain these thousands of wind generators. The logistics for staffing, equipping, creating all of the new roads needed to service such an enterprise is "mind boggleing" and staggering. The impact on this pristine area doesn't stop with the installation of these "wind Turbines.

It is easy to get excited about wonderful ideas that show promise for power production that at least on the surface shows that it might be cost effective as one isn't paying for the wind but the price that we pay for this privilege will not be less expensive, in the end it will prove to be just another way to reach into the consumers pocket.

TMF

What was it that I was saying about "Common Sense"?

All well and good to point out the problems, toomuchfun... but do you have the realistic, solution to this conspiracy-led dirty green eco-disaster that you are predicting? "Realistic" being the key word.

Where have you been? I pointed out the most practical solution several times and the response I get from several responders is that the Govt. is not to be depended upon for the management of the National Grid and A nationally controlled electrical energy system. No one has offered anything better. We do not employ military personel and and their commanders to fight our conflicts. We should not permit profiteers to control the safety and well being of this nation.

Do you not realize the fact that these same profiteers were the primary cause of the runaway fuel prices. They have cost thousands of investors millions of dollars, and have this nation sitting on the edge of bankruptcy. A hundred and fifty years ago electricity was not very important. Today it has become just another form of "lifes blood" to 99% of this nation.

Just how long do you think the city of Phoenix could survive with out electricity in the hot summer time. No water, all of the food spoiling because there is no working refrigeration, no functioning sewage disposal, etc. Just how long do you believe that we should leave this kind of control over our society to folks who's primary interest is the almighty profit.

I guess that the next question is "when are you going to start a petition and send it to your congress people."

TMF

when it becomes impractical to live in the middle of a stinking desert, people will move to places where life is actually possible--where there is enough fresh food, where temperatures are not high enough to fry people without mechanical refrigeration, where there is water. A place like Phoenix would be a backwater in the days before petroleum-fueled transportation and mechanical refrigeration. With the exception of a breathable atmosphere, living in phoenix is like living in the twilight areas on the planet Mercury. It makes sense to have an outpost in a place like that for research, perhaps, but it's absolute insanity to expect people to build houses, raise families, or retire to a place like that. A huge part of our energy crisis is a result of our insistence on building huge cities in lunar environments like Las Vegas, Reno, Texas, Arizona, Utah, most of New Mexico, and southern California.

If you clicked on the link I included before then you would see what I meant.

The new network structure and its maintenance they even proud to talk about is only to show that this type of renewable energy won't be cheap.

Looking at the other links on Vestas' website you can see it's a sizable ambitious adventure including their carefully selected sales team members and so forth.

They might be the next generation of the oil giants' reps under the flag of going green-back (ops) green.

So, the world is not really going all that green by seeing these mesmerising projects and like I said no whistle-blowing either regardless the need for improvement.

This is the part that sucks the most because it means some feeble idea, like this, along with many other ones when it comes to going green first has to be put to a full scale test until it becomes unsustainable and start over again with an even greener project.

I CLICKED ON YOUR LINK! I saw millions of dollars being invested in questionable methods of energy production. The salt water environment is one of the harshest environments for any kind of equipment to survive and function in. What I see is an opportunity to throw good money after bad investments because the promoters have gone too far to stop and rein in the losses. Therefore the answer is to continue to piss away the consumers tax dollars and and baffel'm with b--- s---!

TMF

You have just confirmed my other prejudice that I was thinking about steel structures that at sea they don't last that long (20-30) and than they start to lose their structural stability.

This is just a shear rush to grab as big a piece of the market as possible.

Yeah, you're right. The salt water environment is too tough. We need to stop offshore drilling immediately because of it, and we need to bring in all our ships, since they are also exposed to it. We'd also better take down all those bridges, wind turbines, piers, buoys, and anything else exposed to seawater or salt spray because there's just nothing we can do about it.

I'm sorry, but I thought this was an engineering blog. Are you really that myopic that you would throw away the opportunity to harness 17,000,000 MW escaping just from the known vents (National Geographic's estimate) because you don't want to tackle the challenges of steel or other materials in salt water?

That attitude, my friend, is b---s---. The promise of the only constant renewable source of energy ever harnessed is not.

I gave you a good answer as I felt that it reasonably represented the opinions of many who have posted here within the last week or so.

However I "too" am a "gray haired old goat", with far more skills than the average individual, who has traveled and worked all around this nation, learned of the problems of survival in various areas, often amaized at the commodities for life that were available in the old mining towns of the west, many that are now almost Ghost Towns, with little more than accommodating the needs of travelers for income. But they have electricity even though they are still using fuses, not breakers, and the wiring is only one step above Knob and tube, the only water comes from wells, no rivers, no resevours. For the most part these folks live a complacent life stile, and the world continues to pass them by.

And then there are the small towns, the medium to large cities and then the mega metropolis' that are far more advanced with this thing we call electricity. This is where the problems begin and will ultimately evolve to become out of control. The "question" who will be deprived of this commodity first. Industry? I think not as folks need jobs and these jobs depend on energy. No the population will be further squeezed to pay unfair prices to accommodate and support the cheaper prices paid by the big users.

Eventually one of these camels will incur more pain in the back than they can suffer to live with. Either insufficient electricity, or electricity that will not be affordable.

I doesn't have to be this way, but it will take courage and commitment by a big govt. to take on the power mongering profiteers. In the end it would be in the best interest of all parties. The investors would be repaid for their investments, the public would eventually find stability regarding the cost of electricity, and the ultimate owner will be all the people of this nation. We are paying for it with mega grants anyway, why should we not own it?

TMF

I find it reasonable to get what I pay for. I find it unreasonable for Govt. to give away my tax dollars to private industry and locally owned monopolies/utilities that in turn dispense much of this money out to their investors and over paid CEO's.

"Something about common sense fits here!"

I love your final thought. Very well said.

1. the wind is always blowing somewhere. If it is blowing at 28% of its usual force in England, it's blowing at more than 100% of its usual force elsewhere. That's why wind power generation has to be widespread, and when it's ubiquitous, it will be predictable and steady.

2. wind isn't the only power available in the form of the global equalization of thermal energy. Ocean currents are much larger and much more powerful, if harder to take advantage of. Solar wind and solar power are other sources that need to be exploited more.

3. tidal energy generated based on gravitational force of sun and moon can also contribute to the available energy on the earth. The gravitational attraction of the moon doesn't just lift the water but also the crust of the earth.

4. we've begun to use the hydrothermal power of geological hotspots in places like iceland and japan, but we're currently depending on the natural currents of the earth's core. Operation Mohole, discontinued in order to free up more money for the Vietnam war, intended to drill through the crust of the earth near Hawaii, where the crust is very thin, in order to directly access the earth's mantle for research. The holes would be deep and the consequences unknown, but the mantle of the earth is within a few miles of every location on earth, has sufficient heat to melt rock and forge diamonds, and could provide every city, factory, and settlement with virtually unlimited thermal power generated locally. As far as I know, no research is going into this option, but it could end our dependence on fossil fuels all by itself.

5. recovery of methane (a greenhouse gas) from landfills has just begun, but I anticipate that in the near future landfills will be engineered to maximize this resource. The end product of this generation would include not merely tons of methane for the purpose of hydrogen generation and direct use as fuel in fuel cells, but much more efficient capture of this gas before it hits the atmosphere, but also huge quantities of composted organic matter to enrich farm fields. Uncomposted material could be diverted for smelting. This in itself should be a huge industry, generating large profits and creating millions of jobs.

None of these options are free--but neither are wildcatting, seismography, drilling, pipelines, refineries, oil tankers, tank farms, gas stations, oil delivery trucks, flue scrubbers, powerplants, cooling towers, and so on. Much is made of the government's subsidizing of green energy, but only by people who either through ignorance or calculation fail to mention the government's subsidy of fossil fuels. In addition to the direct payments of billions of dollars to the oil and coal companies and the tax rebates and write-offs the government gives away (out of my pocket and yours--and not just because it requres direct payment from our wallets to the fuel industry, but also because taxes not paid by industries have to be made up by taxes and debt placed squarely on our shoulders). And think back to the Gulf War of 1990 and its purpose. We spent billions of scarce dollars to keep Iraq from invading Saudi Arabia and the Emirates and drove them out of Kuwait not because we're good guys and heroes, but out of concern for the continued flow of cheap oil. The current Iraq war, of course, was a naked attempt to grab control of the Iraqi oil fields--the second largest potential fields on earth--from under the feet of the Iraqi people. It's cost us over 4000 lives and roughly a trillion dollars so far. Where does that appear on the balance sheet of oil subsidies? Nowhere--it doesn't even appear on the federal budget. When the government puts a trillion dollars into wind turbines, I'm willing to discuss the inequity of government subsidies for the wind industry, but until then, our green energy subsidies are a virtual gnat's fart next to the hurricane of fossil fuel subsidies.

As noted in many replies, wind energy is an inconsistent resource. Adding deep earth compressed air storage or differential elevation hydroelectric storage to the system can mitigate this problem, but at a significant increase in total capital costs which historically have proven to be an uneconomic endeavor. To be cost effective, wind energy needs to be applied where its variability can be compensated for by its application. In the western US, to provide water to the dry regions, long aqueduct systems have been built which require electrically driven pumps to move the water. Typically, these aqueduct systems have accompanying periodically placed storage reservoirs and related hydroelectric facilities. In a study conducted in the 1970's, it was shown that the use of wind turbines to power the California Water Aqueduct would be cost effective, since the existing aqueduct infrastructure could compensate for the variable power availability. The end of the Arab oil embargo and the subsequent reduction in the price of fuel oil lowered the price of electricity so that the economic payback for the wind turbines was no longer so attractive, however, given current electrical power costs, the project would again be economic.

The powering of the California Water Aqueduct by wind turbines would not contribute much to the national energy demand. There is, however, another proposed project, originally conceived in the 1960's, the North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA), which could advantageously utilize the variable electrical power generated by wind energy. NAWAPA would run from the water source at the headwaters of the Peace and Yukon rivers, through Alaska, Canada, the lower western US and into Mexico. which when coupled with a wind turbine array located along is thousands of miles of waterways, and aqueducts, could provide significant amounts of dependable power which could be tied into the national (international?) power grid.

At one point in the future, we will have an enormous number of these wind turbines and I presume that all of these turbine's "load" on the wind "supply" will disturb the "supply" enough to have unforeseen results, nature-wise. Is there anyone who would want to risk an answer as what this could/will be? Anyone wants to extend their neck and claim that "hogwash! It will never happen!"? Any comments?

It is a trend to consider that humans do not learn from what they have done. It is true learning is not always present, but there are some "black painters" who only see the future as a total destruction of the world. I think that the truth is some where in the middle and we should not fear for the above described situation for several reasons:

- the investment per power unit is quite important and our financial resources are limited

- the amount of energy in the wind is more than huge and the quantity harvested is only a drop in a see.

- as mentioned by many participants wind energy due to many aspects can not become a major source but will stay a marginal source in the range of about 10% of total consumption.

We could still be optimistic that wind will not be changed by turbines but by other macro changes as climate or may be a volcano eruption with a lot of cinder in the atmosphere. s

Such natural "disturbances" have more a chance to affect winds than the huge for us at our scale but tiny sticks at the earth scale which are the turbines and their masts.

"Such natural "disturbances" have more a chance to affect winds than the huge for us at our scale but tiny sticks at the earth scale which are the turbines and their masts". And yet at one point not so far back, the fish in the ocean were there in infinite quantities. It's been a while since I had cod for diner...

You compare 2 not comparable aspects:

- an ecological balance related to the impact on "living" and

- physical phenomenon.

No doubt locally on a very short range effects will be noticed but considering air viscosity and density those will not go farer than a few km or miles.

There are photos from the top (a few hundred meters high) of the Karman turbulences generated by high industrial chimneys. They disappear after a rather short distance.

The other comment on the effect on earth rotation should be considered as a joke whose humor I appreciate.

It is the play between qualitative and quantitative which is unfortunately too often used as argument on CR4. I noticed that if comments would be made after a very very rough estimation of an order of magnitude many comments would not be made.

As I already mentioned engineering is not only a problem of ideas but also a profession dealling with values which are given by numbers. It is unfortunately too many times forgotten.

My greatest fear is that someday in the future there will be so many of these large fans, and that one day they will ALLLL be pointing west, the world over... and they will combine, and accelerate the earth's rotation... until centrifugal force wins out over gravity and we all fly off.

Hmm... I wonder how much faster the earth would have to spin, in order for that to happen...

Or for that matter... would we fly off first, or would the earth tear itself apart first...

Simple physics, this will not be imparting an outside force on the system. Therefore no net movement of the total system.

Oops, that must've been the engineer in me talking. Ha-ha very funny.

I'm very thankful to you for providing the food for thought, and to Bricktop for the excellent link posted. Everyone should read it. http://www.windenergy-the-truth.com/

I've been aware of the ludicrous hype surrounding wind energy for some time. I have patented the first practical means of utilizing the only truly constant 24/7/365 source of renewable power on the planet, deep-ocean hydrothermal vents. They are powered only by the weight of the water above them, so they truly are constant, and the amount of recoverable energy is astounding.

For those interested, an animation of the system can be seen at www.marshallsystem.com. This is what should be under discussion. Wind is helpful, but it is not a solution. Hydrothermal vents are most definitely a solution.

Thats why you pair wind and solar.

Sorry, but that's absurd.

Next time you want to use your computer on a windless night, let me know by smoke signal.

Can you seriously imagine a grid powered ONLY by wind and solar? It's ludicrous. There will ALWAYS have to be back-up generation from conventional sources.

Hydrothermal energy does not need back up plants. It may need redundancy for safety and reliability, but it doesn't need an alternate plant ramping up and down to try to keep up with an unreliable source as wind and solar are, and that makes it very different indeed.

Pair your wind mill with this !

https://www.earthtechproducts.com/solar-generators---solar-backup-generators.html

Well, if you define 'free energy' as you have, then it seems that many people are right in thinking that wind turbines are taking advantage of 'free energy'. The inefficiency and capital costs do not change the fact that the wind turbines are taking advantage of this source of energy.

In light of your obvious anti-wind stance, perhaps an attempt to induce a paradigm shift is warranted... Isn't this statement below, as equally valid, as your statement above?

>>> Many people think coal fired power plants are taking advantage of 'very cheap energy' -- the coal is plentiful, inexpensive to mine, and has a high power density. However some cost analysis is appropriate. The current day dollar cost per kilowatt hour maybe among the lowest of competing fuels, but the pollution introduced by coal fired plants introduces substantial cost which while real and of enormous magnitude, are difficult to quantify. And the supply of coal like other fossil fuels is limited, so will ultimately only be burning for part of all time.....coal fired plants are useless formerly-white now-soot-covered elephants when there is no more coal, or when the green house gasses have melted sufficient amounts of polar ice to raise the water level sufficiently to submerge the coal plant.<<<

The preceding commentary is a 'sneer poke' from Loki, a meddler from Demiurgeland. To stay up-to-date and informed on trickery trends, satyr, palindromes, and eggcorns, submit unconditionally to Loki today.

I assume your comment is directed to the originator of this thread, but I'll respond anyway.

I don't think that anyone has an "anti-wind stance". I doubt that there's even one contributor to this forum who would deny that wind energy has been proven over thousands of years.

What you seem not to recognize is that as wondrous as it is, wind energy is not suited for everything. For example, it's not reasonable to think of powering a car with it.

The point that seems unassailable is that wind energy is not and can never be a provider of the base load usage of society. That will always relegate it to an auxiliary role at best, no matter how much we spend on it.

I suggest that you and others read the great link provided by bricktop earlier in this discussion. Rather than directing your comments at us, I further suggest that you show why the authors of the http://www.windenergy-the-truth.com website are wrong if you can. If you can't show where their physics or analysis fails, then you would seem to have little choice but to agree with their assessment of wind energy's lack of potential as a solution to our energy needs.

Ah Bruce, lighten up a little. This was just a little poke in the ribs. The originator of the post used an overreaching divisive statement to create commentary and promote the article. To that end, I am doing my part. (BenBenBen formerly 'guest'. I have recently found the site and had decided I would register, but hadn't actually done it. My actualizing impetus was the intent to starting a dialogue with you about Marshal Hydrothermal, and in a blink of synchronicity, looking through your posts, I saw a response to one of my comments....)

The whole idea of being 'anti-wind' or 'pro-wind' for that matter, makes me chuckle. It is not my style to say 'here, look at this funny joke.'. I would rather assume the character so that others may experience in first person rather than endure an explanation of the value of an experience. But let that go.

Before I tread further (stepping on flowers I may or may not see), I want to say, I am very impressed with your idea and plans disclosed at Marshal Hydrothermal. Although I often pen, tongue in cheek, there is no hint of it, when i say that I respect your work.

I have to tell you I am a little surprise that someone with your creativity thinks of possiblilities in terms of negative absolutes:

->>> '....wind energy is not and can never be a provider of the base load usage of society....' <<<<- "CAN NEVER BE" ?!? (the funny thing is that i agree that the probability in the next 100 years of wind providing more than 20% of our total power is extrememly low, and 20% is a high number.) You probably know better than most that it is probability you have to be concerned with .. not possibility.

->>> '....it's not reasonable to think of powering a car with it....'<<< "IT'S NOT REASONABLE TO THINK" ?!? No great leap (or even significant step) forward, has been made by someone being 'reasonable'. You certainly weren't being 'reasonable' when you first kindled the spark that you have fanned into Marshal Hydrothermal. I can think of multiple ways to power a car by wind, that pass the test of reason. location and commute have a lot to do with it, but charging spare batteries, or producing a hydrogen reserve using wind power, is not that different from doing so with traditional grid power.

Words are important my friend. There is no base machine language beneath our spoken language, on which the brain runs. The brain decides reality is as you describe it. If, with sufficient repetition and conviction, you tell a brain, whether it be yours or another's, that many things 'never can be' and that 'it is unreasonable to think'; the danger is that the brain will believe you, and stop thinking of alternatives, because it is unreasonable to do so, and it can't be anyway.

I'm curious at this point how your balance has you. Am I being 'unreasonable'? If so, does it cause you to devalue my future input in any subsequent discussions?

benbenben

formerly aka 'guest'

Htmleditor - blank page No headings found. If this site is important to you, please email us the URL to contact@hyperwords.net and we'll try to support it for the next release of Hyperwords

I believe that it was said somewhere focus not on the destination but enjoy the journey.

If no one ever does any research to find that Mythical Free Energy would we ever find cheaper energy sources or less destructive methods of producing energy.

They may be useless when there is no wind but they are cheap to allow to stand Idle. Compared to letting an offshore oil rig be idle, or the ship that transports the oil idle, or even the refinery to remain idle.

Mmmm... I don't know... to me it sounds as if this thread does indeed contain some pretty strong "anti-wind" opinions.

As for my own opinion (and let's remember that ALL these comments are just that... opinions)... I agree completely with dadw5boys. Wind is not the magic answer to it all, but I believe very strongly that it must continue to be tried, and go thru the failures, and learn things, and try again, and keep trying. There are always costs to the learning curve. The article in question almost implies that wind is a dead end and we've all been duped by the hype. That's a bit too conspiratorial to my tastes. And a bit closed minded. With enough thought put into it, almost any theory can be "proven" or "debunked" with the very same data. It all depends how you spin it and present it.

Ever think some may even have stakes in other industry that wind might cause a slow down in or shut down period ?

I'm sorry but I don't understand your attitude. This is an engineering forum, and what has been called the "anti-wind" site raised serious physical and engineering issues. It wasn't conspiratorial at all. You seem to be suggesting that we keep dumping billions of tax (insert local currency here) into wind because it "must continue to be tried", which is a ludicrous position to take among engineers who deal with facts and figures.

Haven't you ever heard of Einstein's definition of insanity? It's doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

You first have to define what the goal of wind generation is. Wind is unquestionably a dead end if the goal is to provide a replacement for conventional base load generation. The authors of the site made that very clear.

I said before and will repeat again that they have done what engineers are supposed to do. They laid out their arguments very clearly as to why wind can never provide society's base load, and why it's both unreliable and dangerous to the overall health of the power grid as an alternate source. If you choose to dispute that, then you need to act like an engineer and dispute it with facts and/or physics, and not with remarks about conspiracy or closed-mindedness, or with wishful thinking that we only have to pass some mythical "learning curve" to make it successful.

Simply suggesting that we "keep trying" is absurd. You can not create reliable electrical power from an unreliable source. It's really that simple. Diesel generators work very well indeed, but if the fuel delivery is sporadic, they can't provide a base load service either.

I'd like to state for the record here that I am NOT anti-wind at all. It undeniably works, and has been proven for milennia. I simply have to accept the fact that it is not suited for what we're asking it to do, and that is the issue under discussion.

WOAH !

I am only stating that some people have a fixed way at looking at things. They have forgotten over the years little things in business like how the devolpment of a product has a lot of costs and one thing that they have been doing for years is externalizing cost. Cost to not only the enviorment, but the people who have an equity in the natural resources, and several other cost businesses must absorb to create a product. Do you really think a little radio you can buy at Walmart has all the cost built into it at $4.00 ?

Not all cost are figured in the math of return of power from a machine.

I'm not trying to attack you with these posts, but I swear I don't think you read the "anti-wind" site at all!

You are talking about costs in your response, and cost is not the issue.

There are serious issues of engineering and physics raised that can't be swept under the rug. They can't be brushed aside with remarks about conspiracy or learning curves. I ask again that you address them specifically. If you believe those authors are incorrect, fine...tell us why, in comparable terms. If you see something wrong with their analysis, I would love to hear what it is, and I'd honestly like to be convinced that they are wrong.

I'm not trying to attack you personally here. I'm attacking what I view as very weak arguments. We are talking about billions from treasuries all over the globe being spent on something that simply can never do what we want it to do. Spending even more won't make wind power more viable. There is way more than enough global installed capacity to make a very fair judgment of whether the authors are correct or not. They showed the combined output of 7,000 wind generators all across Germany. I think they made their point unequivocally.

Well... I think I'll continue following this thread, but stop replying to bcmarshalls posts. When I'm told my own opinions are "absurd" and when the word "never", and other absolutes are used to describe scientific issues... it's clear to me that a reasonable discussion can't take place.

I'm sorry bcmarshall, but I feel pretty confident in saying that you are not the absolute authority on this subject... your views are not the final word... and my views do in fact have credibility equal to yours.

There is no reason that R&D in the area of wind power should not follow the same path that every other area of developing technology has taken. I shudder to think at how many discoveries would not have occurred if the attitude of "aww, it's not working like we want. Let's hang it up" were more prevalent.

I just can't see how a man of science can ever use absolutes, and still call himself a scientist or engineer.

As far as what that website "proves".. I will just say what I said before... with enough effort, any theory can be "proven" or "debunked" depending on what spin you put on it, and what facts you choose to include or NOT include.

And that's all I've got to say about that :)

I am not here to insult or personally attack anyone, but it seems that the issues you raise are absurd and I feel justified in questioning them.

You speak about a man of science using absolutes like "never" as if there is something incompatible about the two, yet I can give you a hundred examples of why they are compatible. I often make points by using extreme examples, and I'll use just one here.

Would you disagree with me if I said that we can never power the city of Los Angeles with a flashlight battery? Of course you wouldn't. The word "never" is totally reasonable to use in this context. We know what the amp-hour rating of the battery is, and we know what the base load demand of the city is, and we know it can never work. I also doubt that you'd disagree with the use of the word "absurd" in rejecting the argument of someone offering flashlight batteries as a solution to our energy woes.

I know you're not offering batteries as a solution. I am only demonstrating why "never" and "absurd" can be fairly used in a scientific discussion.

Wind is known to be fickle and sporadic. Hydrostorage is a neat concept but it only works if you can provide everything needed plus additional energy to pump water for use on windless days.

I am not the absolute authority on this or any other subject, and I'm not trying to present myself as if I were. I will even go so far as to offer apologies if I sound like that's what I'm doing. I'm trying only to further this discussion by using terms that we all hopefully understand, like voltage, current, spikes, base load, and other similar engineering concepts.

The authors of the www.windenergy-the-truth.com site did their homework and presented cogent and nearly unassailable arguments to support their positions. If they are wrong it isn't just a matter of presenting your positions as an intellectual disagreement. It's a matter of demonstrating why they're wrong, and showing where their positions and/or calculations fail.

If you're ever in Southern California you can email me and we'll have a beer and discuss it in person. There is nothing personal intended in my responses to you.

I'm an engineer and a man of science first and foremost. Show me where their arguments are wrong and I'll be on the "wind promise" bandwagon in a heartbeat. I sincerely wish wind were a viable alternative, and it's not me who says it's not. It's the science that says so.

If you live where I live, it would be "absurd" not to use the wind. We're rated as a higher generation use state anyway. With efficiency in design changing and new experimentation performed every day, "they" are finding more ways to bring up efficiency and out put on many levels.

Yes, it is utilized mostly to subsidize and used as "on demand power" due to the fact, here especially, it is completely achievable. For many homes in the mountain areas here, where many are off grid, it supplies power for batteries and other source supplies. Solar is also better utilized in our area as well. Appearing as though you are using absolutes or offensive sounding words may be in your right mind as justifiable to your application as you've explained, but not so appropriate for keeping people engaged where it's ok to disagree and accepted as so.

It starts to emanate those Guests who push the HHO stuff and get all defensive. Just an observation as your obviously a pretty intelligent guy, and obviously justifiably passionate about your subject matter and life's work. Kudos. I'll leave it at that. Very nice web site by the way.

To interject my opinion, people like Pickens bother me in this case as he does see it as an absolute (based on what I get from his web site and constant e-mails) and he stands to gain financially more from it. He see's it as the energy savior and way more that 20% to the grid. There are of course many more means to generate electrical power and I feel we have a long way to go in learning and developing more ideas in the future in this area. There absolutely is no absolute one way to solve this problem absolutely.

Again I apologize if I sounded offensive. There's nothing to be gained from that. This is a technical discussion of possibilities among people who have understanding of the real-world advantages and restraints of different systems.

I'm passionate about the idea of renewable energy providing what we get from dirty or dangerous sources now, but I'm realistic enough to recognize that nothing renewable, save hydrothermal and to some extent geothermal, has the potential to really replace conventional generation.

My wife's hometown is just down the road from you in Belen, and I've been to ABQ on many occasions. Of course you should use the wind and sun. Hell, if I owned a home and some land out there I'd use nature as much as possible. I'd have cool-tube air conditioning, solar water heating, phase-change storage for solar space heating, passive solar design of my home, and wind generators cranking kw into my battery supply. I'm neither blind to their potential or crazy enough not to want to avail myself of nature's bounty.

But here's the catch. In order to run my one house and provide 100% of all of my own needs 24/7, through every kind of weather, would be a very expensive project. No one in their right mind would hook their computer with sensitive data to a wind generator as the sole source. It would require some storage medium like batteries to smooth it out.

So how can we even discuss connecting wind power directly to the grid to power everyone else's computer? It makes no sense to me, and that's what this discussion is about.

I'm a taxpayer like all of you, and my money is being flushed down the rabbit hole along with yours on wind projects that are sold to us in great, rosy terms, but which lack the technical potential to make any real difference to our base load generating capacity. That's what I've been trying to say here repeatedly.

Use wind for pumping water for hydrostorage. Use it for individual homes charging batteries. Use it for the things that it's suited for, but don't invest billions in wind/grid connections, and don't let a slick billionaire named Pickens convince you and your legislators that wind is the answer to our problems. It simply is not and can never be.

Geothermal is different. That can provide a base load constant capacity in all weather at all times of the day. Let's spend the money there, where we have the potential to get what we pay for. At least a 65 MW installed capacity of geothermal will provide approximately that amount on a constant basis. 65MW installed wind capacity is good for about 13 MW average if we're lucky. That's not good enough for a society to hitch its future to.

I recommend that everyone read the www.windenergy-the-truth.com site and ask the questions posed in it of your legislators when wind energy is being discussed. Those questions and their answers should be the deciding factor in whether we invest our collective money in these systems. If the engineers among us don't demand hard answers to reasonable concerns, who will?

Your comments are very well understood and I personally pretty much agree with all you said.

Just a quick observation, I also noticed that often those responding to others comments, I feel read quickly through them and or even just skim them and then respond. Often not getting the real gist of the comment. I've seen where many even come back with an "I re-read the comment and realized.... I try to read and make comments directly to what I'm understanding. Thus:

"In order to run my one house and provide 100% of all of my own needs 24/7, through every kind of weather, would be a very expensive project."

I agree however I've seen where homes here running 100% off grid were developed far below what one might think. Grant it, a lot of them did a lot of their own work. "Affordable" is subjective as well. But I also see where costs of like full sine wave inverters, batteries, more efficient solar panels and such, are much more reasonable now days and cost keep coming down, for the most part. Also there are a few homes here running from Geo thermal generation. The costs where pretty high, but they could afford it and as you mention, it seems to be consistent 24/7. The ROI is going to be long, but they feel it was worth it. Personally I'm learning more about that source of energy weekly.

but which lack the technical potential to make any real difference to our base load generating capacity.

Boy, not in a lot of politicians eyes and read Pickens site where he has "engineers" who tell him differently. But I agree with you to some degree in that where my wife is from,Iowa, they've been planting those big "scary" (as my wife calls them) mills everywhere. I've yet to find what percentage of contribution to the grid they really achieve. I'd like to know the ratio of return to out put power and ROI on the costs, just to start. Maybe they make sense placed in that wind (tornado) blowing area.

I want to see more realistic and properly applied uses for some of the many diverse and useful energy systems. Does it seem like the powers that be in our social system are trying to nail in on one system only to provide the power? Obviously, if everyone could supplement their home energy needs consistently by 50% with what obtainable energy conversion is around them, that would be billions lost in heating fuel, and electricity supply alone. Seems pretty logical to me for government to stick to one source only regardless of the production efficiency or environmental impact.

(As you probably already know, Belen has a Starbucks and a Flying Star, I think it being a "small town" is pretty much over! But we go to the "Range" there often!)

Hi guys & girls (if there are any out there!)

I've been following this interesting discussion for some time and have to say that I am impressed by the passion, thaought and energy put into it.

I believe that all engineers here know that wind cannot be a total solution but should be used as part of the mix. We in the UK do not have a Pickens character trying to get rich on our tax pounds, (thank goodness) we just still have bankers claiming big bonuses for doing so well last year screwing us over.

The geothermal vent idea is excellent - I hope Mr Marshall is not going to "block" uptake of this by ownership of patents - good luck to him and I would like to see him get some reward, but we are talking about issues far to important to let stuff like money get in the way.

Should we start a new discussion on how to promote uptake of this technology? The main problem with it that I can see is how to find the investment to get it going.....

It can't be done by individuals/small companies, but needs the millions of dollars men to buy into it bigtime. So lets turn the forum energy away from arguing about the wind into pressing for this other technology.

For remote locations, the technologies that would appear to me to be worth pursuing are: wind, sun, biomass gasification. I do not see tidal or wave power as likely to be worth it except for some very special cases - and the impact on the environment is likely to be difficult to assess and high.

ps I also have a feeling that biomass gasification is a technology worth pursuing for the remote areas that do not have wind or sun

Phil, one of your comments read, "I believe that all engineers here know that wind cannot be a total solution but should be used as part of the mix."

I agree with that. I haven't heard anyone advocating shutting down conventional plants so we can run on wind alone. What should be discussed is how that mix should be configured, and what are reasonable expectations. That's what my whole premise here is about.

To answer your questions, my hydrothermal system is available for licensing worldwide. I'll continue to do all that I can do to gain acceptance and earn a seat at the table for any future energy discussion. I'll do nothing to block it.

I've considered opening a discussion on the Marshall Hydrothermal Recovery System here and perhaps I will, but I don't want that to detract from what we really need to focus on in this thread.

We should be discussing what the realistic advantages and limitations of wind power are, since that is where the money is going right now. I'd like to ask anyone who is a strong proponent of wind power to argue for it so we can hash out among ourselves what makes sense and what doesn't.

I've made my own position clear. I believe the "promise of wind power" is nothing more than that...a promise, but even worse, a promise based on illusion and not physics. I would love to have someone show me why I'm wrong and why wind really can lower our base load generation requirements from conventional sources and provide stable, reliable power, but up to now I haven't seen anything even remotely convincing.

This is the place for each of us to lay out our arguments for all to see. Let's hash them and bash them, and then either trash them or support them. I think we have to try to come to a consensus, at least among this very small group of technical people, as to what is reasonable, and it makes sense to focus on wind power first.

If nothing else, such a discussion arms us with facts and information we can use going forward as we each do our small part to help provide sustainable power for ourselves and future generations. I doubt that anyone would disagree that that is an ultimate goal worthy of working toward.

You're not going to hear those figures from Pickens and his crowd, because they have a vested interest in NOT telling the public things like that. That's why I'm urging everyone here to ask the tough questions and do everything you can to get your legislators to ask those questions before appropriating money.

I got into this discussion by accident, but was fascinated by the link that Bricktop provided. I'm involved in making my own energy patent on hydrothermal vents a reality, but long before I read the link I had said essentially the same thing about wind power in my documentation. The difference is that at that time I didn't have the excellent facts and figures that the link provided, which only confirmed the things I said.

I've decided to speak out against wind power here because I just can not see the logic behind spending untold billions on a system that doesn't have physics in its corner. It's as illogical to me as using a food crop like corn for ethanol, another horrible boondoggle that we're paying through the rectum for.

As idealistic as it sounds, we're never going to get everyone to be able to provide half their own energy needs. We have renters, distressed homeowners that can barely make their payments or are facing foreclosure, and so many other issues that make it the impossible dream, so we have to be realistic.

The first step is to recognize that the great vast majority of people will always be reliant on the grid for their energy. Our goal as engineers, citizens, and taxpayers must be to try to get the most bang for our bucks when it comes to alternate technologies. That means we have to support what works and jettison what doesn't, no matter how much political clout that position might have.

The green technologies with the best base load promise are really confined to two related concepts, geothermal and hydrothermal. Solar is absolutely perfect for providing peak load supplements since it performs best when that load is highest, when the sun is hottest and brightest, but again, it just can't be a base load provider. And for fuel, the best I've ever seen is oilgae, which is ethanol and biodiesel both derived from fast growing algae. http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

The reasonable potential for wind energy is anything that is not directly connected to the grid. Use it to pump water for hydrostorage, for example, and let the storage turbine output be connected to the grid. Just don't try to hook it's output straight to our lights, computers, and the like.

Let's support passive solar design in new construction along with solar water heating and better insulation, and require all new swimming pools to use solar heat. Anything that reduces the base load is a critical part of the long-term solution.

I really think there are forces at work that want us to spend on technologies that won't create the long term solution we require. Lots of talk, lots of money invested, lots of pretty windmills on the hillsides, and no real impact on our usage of fossil fuels.

Hey, bc, I have a question for you, about your project. I'm not a geologist, and I really don't know. I understand, from my limited knowledge and research, that the hydrothermal vent water is very hot, and under tremendous pressure. I've also learned that it is highly mineralized. As this water is brought up to ambient temps. and pressures, with these minerals fall out of solution? Could this pose a problem for the machinery?

And, do any of these minerals have an economic value? So, as not only producing a source of energy, you could be mining at the same time?

Just a thought.

Bricktop, great question and I'd love to answer it, but I don't feel right taking up space and distracting folks away from the important dialog we're having about wind energy.

For that reason, I opened a separate discussion at http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/33605/Hydrothermal-Energy-is-Now-a-Reality.

Anyone who wants to join in is welcome, and Bricktop, please repost your question there and I will answer it.

I have very strong feelings about wind energy and its potential, and I really think we should keep this forum open for that discussion.

Thanks.

Bruce Marshall

Well, I don't know, but now I'm a huge fan of magnetic energy - as a free energy source. I think you should see it for yourself:

http://bit.ly/1Bn1Nt

My opinion: really cool. But what's your opinion, dear experts?

Sorry but don't be deluded by such things - although the "big companies" do get rather parochial under certain conditions, any of them would sell their souls (if they have any indeed) to produce such a device for the market! This is just someone with at least as little integrity as the big-company bosses trying to part you from your hard-earned cash.....

There are man made rules and universal, natural, unbreakable god-made rules, and perpetual motion machines break the kind that cannot be broken, except by beings that live outside our universe - ie not you and me.

Could be fun trying - as long as you don't think it will work!

This is just a hoax as far as I can see and I saw this on youtube and there's no shortage of gimmicks about it. Those guys obviously are trying to make some quick-Buck before they get caught.

I do not want to cut and paste but just read the whole lot and you should realise that whilst they do not lie in Oz they definitely bull-dust. Loll.

Hav a good day mate!

Like you, I'm fascinated by the prospect of "free energy" from magnets, but if you do a google search on "John Christie scam" you'll find a lot of references. The guy got press, and probably got investors, but he has no product.

I'm an inventor, but my hydrothermal energy system is not snake oil. It's real and violates no laws of physics. Unfortunately, the size and scale of it and the remote location of the hydrothermal vents mean that it's impossible to build a simple prototype. The prototype will be the first operational system.

If I had developed a magnetic motor and wanted to demonstrate it, I'd call a press conference, set it up as they watched so they could see everything from the beginning, switch it on, and then let the reporters sit in the room with it in shifts, never leaving it unmonitored, as long as it took them to become convinced that it was real. I wouldn't have a news crew come down for a half hour photo-op looking at some spinning contraption that they don't understand and expect them to carry the word forward.

It's obvious that this is a scam or he'd unequivocally prove that it works in the manner described and haul in his billions, but that's not saying I don't believe there's a potential way to use magnets to drive an external energy-free motor. What's needed is a magnetic commutator which will reverse polarities at the proper intervals to always keep the force propulsion going in the same direction and never allow it to oppose the desired motion.

If such a device were constructed then we possibly could have motors powered by nothing more than permanent magnets, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it. And without a clear-cut, unambiguous demonstration I wouldn't put a nickel into it. A three minute video on YouTube is not enough.

I'm very reluctant to use the word "never", except when physical principles are violated, such as getting water to flow uphill without external energy. In such a case I'll use the word and say it can never happen.

In this case, rather than never I'l say it's extremely unlikely that a permanent magnet motor of the type described can ever work.

However, because of the type of device involved, if someone does figure out something it should be easy to demonstrate. The prototype would be neither prohibitively large nor prohibitively expensive, and it could be independently verified in a few days. Until then, keep your money in your pocket.

Keep in mind the difference between a force and energy. Gravity is a force, as is magnetism, but we don't get energy from gravity. The only way to extract energy from a force is to have motion, such as the potential energy of water behind a dam falling through a turbine. Gravity provides the momentum, but if the lake runs dry the energy flow stops even though gravity does not.

In all of demonstrated physics magnetism works the same way, inducing a current in a conductor only when the conductor (or the magnet) is moving, but the fascination will likely never die. It doesn't mean people will stop trying. Magnetism is the only force of nature that you can hold in your hand and play with, and that is a powerful psychological force if nothing else.