# Windmills in our mountains.  What's so bad?



## save$ (Oct 20, 2012)

We came across these windmills.   In one pick you an see them in a far distance. With 20x you can get a better view.  Coudn't hear them.  We drove up a mountain road and got real close.  I still could not hear them.  As for messing up the view,  no more than the road or power lines already do.


----------



## bfunk13 (Oct 20, 2012)

I agree, i never had a problem with them. 
In Wyoming here, there are lots of wind farms, 99% of them are in the middle of nowhere and on prairie land that no one uses anyway. But the debate is always big about them.


----------



## JOHN BOY (Oct 20, 2012)

Love the bottom two pic's..! awesome.


----------



## swagler85 (Oct 20, 2012)

My neighbor has one on the farm behind us, can't really see it though through the woods. I heard it for the first time last week though. Had a wind storm come in and it sounded like a helicopter,kinda weird at first I looked up to see the chopper but the sound never moved then I realized it was the windmill.


----------



## billb3 (Oct 21, 2012)

They are testing some Chinese built systems placed almost in the center of town nearby and wind direction and speed are causing varying results in multi-senses disruptions. iirc they have 32 sensors placed at 8 compass points around it and at varying distances.
What will probably  happen  at the end of the study is the generators will be stopped with specific wind direction and speeds.
Hopefully not compromising payback too much for the principals involved. 
At least these are not having  bird/bat problems.


----------



## nate379 (Oct 21, 2012)

save$ said:


> We came across these windmills. In one pick you an see them in a far distance. With 20x you can get a better view. Coudn't hear them. We drove up a mountain road and got real close. I still could not hear them. As for messing up the view, no more than the road or power lines already do.


 
seems like a bunch are going up in Maine. Mars Hill has quite a few.


----------



## Wildo (Oct 21, 2012)

Maine is a great place for windmills as it is windy with gusts of ridiculous almost every day. However I'm not a fan of them they are ugly. Maybe they could paint them in cloud camo like many fisherman use.


----------



## ScotO (Oct 21, 2012)

there putting them things up here in central PA now, too.  And I am not a fan of those giant 'fans'.  You oughta see how much state game land they take when they put ONE of the up.  Lots of acreage that was paid for by hunters, being sold down the river to private enterprise.  Total BS if you ask me.  Then to boot, we don't get the energy from them, if we have to look at the damm things, we should be benefiting from them.  I just think it's a crock.........


----------



## Realstone (Oct 21, 2012)

They are a poor way to generate electricity


----------



## ScotO (Oct 21, 2012)

Realstone said:


> They are a poor way to generate electricity


 Don't get me wrong, I'm all about trying to find alternative energy.  But the windmill thing isn't the answer, especially for certain areas.  Out in the plains, long vast expanses of fields or praries owned by private entities.....that's an entirely different deal.  After all, it takes something like a thousand windmills to generate the same amount of electricity as a large coal-fired powerplant, if I'm not mistaken.  We have a handful here, a handful there......all eyesores, all privately owned, sitting on land that was paid for by the public.  I think it's a crock of sh!t!


----------



## Ehouse (Oct 21, 2012)

Not to mention transmission losses.  I think mid-sized installations that can serve towns close at hand is a much better idea.

Ehouse


----------



## ScotO (Oct 21, 2012)

Ehouse said:


> Not to mention transmission losses. I think mid-sized installations that can serve towns close at hand is a much better idea.
> 
> Ehouse


 EXACTLY.  That would be acceptable, IMO.  But, you know as well as I do, that isn't what these wind farms are about.  They're all about selling their product to the highest bidder, while generating it in the lowest-cost setting (in small townships and recessed areas where they can pay as little tax or lease rights as possible).  I understand they have to make some money, but it's BS how they're doing it.  Maybe small communities need to get together and purchase (yes, I'm sure it'll be expensive) their own windmills and generate said areas' own electricity.  Just a quick though.  I understand there is a lot more involved than just "pluggin' it in".  But maybe that's what we need to start reaching for.  When business gets on the same page as most folks (we wanna do it for the environment and our children, not so much for making money), then we can start to turn the page....


----------



## Realstone (Oct 21, 2012)

I have a few issues with them.  One of them is that the ROI is WAY too high.  Another is that they are not dependable sources of power.  Another is that they cannot survive financially without subsidies.  We do not need more drains on the public purse.


----------



## ScotO (Oct 21, 2012)

Realstone said:


> I have a few issues with them.


 You have local ones there, Steve?


----------



## Realstone (Oct 21, 2012)

I have a few issues with them. One of them is that the ROI is WAY too high. Another is that they are not dependable sources of power. Another is that they cannot survive financially without subsidies. We do not need more drains on the public purse.


----------



## Realstone (Oct 21, 2012)

Yes, a big wind farm about an hour away, a few idle showcase ones down by Lake Ontario and a number more proposed farms within a 45 minute4 drive. What bugs me the most is the poor return on public investment. That's MY money your wasting!


----------



## ScotO (Oct 21, 2012)

Realstone said:


> Yes, a big wind farm about an hour away, a few idle showcase ones down by Lake Ontario and a number more proposed farms within a 45 minute4 drive. What bugs me the most is the poor return on public investment. That's MY money your wasting!



Agreed.  When its not about the money, then it becomes more palatable.   That's not the case though, and we all know it.


----------



## raybonz (Oct 21, 2012)

Scotty Overkill said:


> Don't get me wrong, I'm all about trying to find alternative energy. But the windmill thing isn't the answer, especially for certain areas. Out in the plains, long vast expanses of fields or praries owned by private entities.....that's an entirely different deal. After all, it takes something like a thousand windmills to generate the same amount of electricity as a large coal-fired powerplant, if I'm not mistaken. We have a handful here, a handful there......all eyesores, all privately owned, sitting on land that was paid for by the public. I think it's a crock of sh!t!


I disagree Scott and normally tend to agree with you.. Coal is a very dirty fuel and even when pollution equipment is used nothing cleans 100%. Wind power doesn't pollute and has a very small footprint on the land where it resides. Wind power takes nothing from the planet and wind will never go away. The latest issue of Mother Earth News http://www.motherearthnews.com/renewable-energy/clean-energy-zm0z12onzmar.aspx is very interesting and informative on this matter. Much farmland is used and the farmers are paid royalties and still can produce crops with windmills present. I firmly believe that we need to get away from our use of petroleum based products and this includes coal wherever possible. Hydro power has proven itself for decades but the downside is it is disruptive to the environment whereas wind power takes very little from the environment. To me windmills are much nicer to look at than cell towers and serve a greater purpose. There are quite a few windmills in my area and I think they look pretty neat! Another upside is many of these windmills will need to be built, installed and serviced which create many good jobs and pave the way to energy independance.

Ray


----------



## raybonz (Oct 21, 2012)

Realstone said:


> I have a few issues with them. One of them is that the ROI is WAY too high. Another is that they are not dependable sources of power. Another is that they cannot survive financially without subsidies. We do not need more drains on the public purse.


We should NOT subsidize oil companies this money should be used for future sources of energy. People need to see the big picture so they understand how this all works.

Ray


----------



## raybonz (Oct 21, 2012)

Wildo said:


> Maine is a great place for windmills as it is windy with gusts of ridiculous almost every day. However I'm not a fan of them they are ugly. Maybe they could paint them in cloud camo like many fisherman use.


Seems all I have seen are white and wonder if there is a reason for this..

Ray


----------



## Wildo (Oct 21, 2012)

The windmills near us don't seem to have a small footprint as can be viewed on google earth.  Iberola is behind almost all of these farms even if the investors claim otherwise, feel free to research them.  Our windmills are built with our money,on our land destroying deer yards, the power goes to Canada and the money goes to Spain.  AS they did to California when the windmills broke down they claim it is too expensive to fix them ( we will go bankrupt if we lay out that much money they usually say) by then they have invested pennies compared to their profits and our losses, feel free to research the dead wind farms in Ca. there are hundreds that we paid for and they got rich off of and are now just rusting and ugly.


----------



## raybonz (Oct 21, 2012)

Wildo said:


> The windmills near us don't seem to have a small footprint as can be viewed on google earth. Iberola is behind almost all of these farms even if the investors claim otherwise, feel free to research them. Our windmills are built with our money,on our land destroying deer yards, the power goes to Canada and the money goes to Spain. AS they did to California when the windmills broke down they claim it is too expensive to fix them ( we will go bankrupt if we lay out that much money they usually say) by then they have invested pennies compared to their profits and our losses, feel free to research the dead wind farms in Ca. there are hundreds that we paid for and they got rich off of and are now just rusting and ugly.


I agree safeguards should be placed and surveys must be done to establish viability of this or any other energy resource. My personal proven favorite would be hydro power but it's nearly impossible to install dams in the USA. Dams have messed up the fish and wildlife as they were more of an after thought. Personally I despise nuclear power as it is simply too dangerous when\if things go wrong. Coal, oil and gas pollute the air as well even with pollution controls. Solar while clean and quiet occupies a large surface area to generate power. What would be the best solution or combination to generate the power we all rely on is the question..

Ray


----------



## Wildo (Oct 21, 2012)

Maine is a great place for tidal and I think tidal has many advantages but i havent researched the cons.  Well I gotta go dismember some trees bye


----------



## btuser (Oct 21, 2012)

You can find the same pictures of dead oil wells and dead mill buildings all across the country.  I don't necessarily find them anymore unattractive than a 30 year old turbine.  Why they don't scrap them I haven't a clue, but with modern turbines being so much more efficient than the first generation models it doesn't make sense to repair the old ones.  

I've been near a few of the big windmills, and they definitely make a lot of noise.  It's a really strange feeling too, like a pressure wave or something, quite disconcerting. That's at about 200', but at 1/2 mile on a ridge it's nothing.   Compare that to a coal-fired plant that pollutes the air and water and I'll take a trail of windmills on the hill.  I like watching them, .  If you've ever been near a coal plant they're not quiet either.   Plus if you count the size of the mine, the railroad, and the coal plant I bet they're of similar size.  The transmission loss argument doesn't necessarily hold water either, because having to dig/transport the coal (then using the same transmission lines) is much more energy intensive than loss over HVTL.


----------



## Ehouse (Oct 21, 2012)

raybonz said:


> I agree safeguards should be placed and surveys must be done to establish viability of this or any other energy resource. My personal proven favorite would be hydro power but it's nearly impossible to install dams in the USA. Dams have messed up the fish and wildlife as they were more of an after thought. Personally I despise nuclear power as it is simply too dangerous when\if things go wrong. Coal, oil and gas pollute the air as well even with pollution controls. Solar while clean and quiet occupies a large surface area to generate power. What would be the best solution or combination to generate the power we all rely on is the question..
> 
> Ray


Small to medium sized energy production is a sleeper, especially hydro, (drop tube turbines), and can be much less disruptive to the enviroment.  we should all press our reps. to subsidize local systems instead of mega installations. 

Ehouse


----------



## Ehouse (Oct 21, 2012)

btuser said:


> You can find the same pictures of dead oil wells and dead mill buildings all across the country. I don't necessarily find them anymore unattractive than a 30 year old turbine. Why they don't scrap them I haven't a clue, but with modern turbines being so much more efficient than the first generation models it doesn't make sense to repair the old ones.
> 
> I've been near a few of the big windmills, and they definitely make a lot of noise. It's a really strange feeling too, like a pressure wave or something, quite disconcerting. That's at about 200', but at 1/2 mile on a ridge it's nothing. Compare that to a coal-fired plant that pollutes the air and water and I'll take a trail of windmills on the hill. I like watching them, . If you've ever been near a coal plant they're not quiet either. Plus if you count the size of the mine, the railroad, and the coal plant I bet they're of similar size. The transmission loss argument doesn't necessarily hold water either, because having to dig/transport the coal (then using the same transmission lines) is much more energy intensive than loss over HVTL.


 

It shouldn't be "please, mister developer, if this batch of turbines (shopping mall, factory, etc.) isn't going to be used anymore, would you kindly restore the site?".  They should be legally bound to do so.

Unlike a coal (or NG) plant, wind generation needs no fuel delivered so that's not a valid comparison.  Transmission line losses are real and can be greatly reduced by local usage.  So put the damn things in Westchester if that's where they need the juice.

Ehouse


----------



## ScotO (Oct 21, 2012)

raybonz said:


> I disagree Scott and normally tend to agree with you.. Coal is a very dirty fuel and even when pollution equipment is used nothing cleans 100%. Wind power doesn't pollute and has a very small footprint on the land where it resides. Wind power takes nothing from the planet and wind will never go away. The latest issue of Mother Earth News http://www.motherearthnews.com/renewable-energy/clean-energy-zm0z12onzmar.aspx is very interesting and informative on this matter. Much farmland is used and the farmers are paid royalties and still can produce crops with windmills present. I firmly believe that we need to get away from our use of petroleum based products and this includes coal wherever possible. Hydro power has proven itself for decades but the downside is it is disruptive to the environment whereas wind power takes very little from the environment. To me windmills are much nicer to look at than cell towers and serve a greater purpose. There are quite a few windmills in my area and I think they look pretty neat! Another upside is many of these windmills will need to be built, installed and serviced which create many good jobs and pave the way to energy independance.
> 
> Ray


Ray, it's OK for us to disagree on things, no grudges here.  I can see why some people are fully "bought into" the windmill thing.  I fully agree that we need an alternative, I just disagree that windmills are the way to do it.  Like Ehouse stated, just the transmission loss alone (transporting it long distances to the useage site) saps alot of the benefit out of it.  And there are much better ways, IMO.  Solar, for the homeowner, will eventually be the way to go I think.  And the technology is there, it's just unaffordable to the average Joe.  We would have to become much less wasteful to make it feasable.  I'd love to be able to put solar shingles on my entire workshop roof to generate at least SOME of the electricity we go through here at home, but cannot afford the initial cost yet.  Have you looked into tidal power generation?  That would be far less of an eyesore, and a never-ending constant (unlike the wind) source of energy, all under water and out of sight.  I also like the idea of magma powerplants, using the core power of the earth to generate steam for power.  There's also clean gas technology (they're using it in Europe), we need to get off of big oil and start using that here.  But we also NEED coal........like it or not.  Not to mention we sell an ENORMOUS amount of coal to China, and they (unlike us) pump the emissions directly into the air, no scrubbing or cleaning of it whatsoever.  That poison (the stuff that most of our power plants are regulated to clean out before it leaves the smokestack) is going into the same global air that we breathe......until they regulate theirselves (which they probably will NEVER do) our efforts to kill global warming are futile.

Anyway, I'm good with a difference of opinion, bud........I just see it differently than you.  In the end, I want this world to be cleaner for my children and eventually my grandchildren.


----------



## basod (Oct 21, 2012)

Realstone said:


> Yes, a big wind farm about an hour away, a few idle showcase ones down by Lake Ontario and a number more proposed farms within a 45 minute4 drive. What bugs me the most is the poor return on public investment. That's MY money your wasting!


That's my stock price going up

No more PTC in 2013=no new wind turbines in US.
Solar is the new wind.

Guess how much of a fine it is to even possess a bird of prey - wether shot or not in the US - 10k
Guess how many you can kill on a wind farm and not pay any fine? all you want to


----------



## woodchip (Oct 21, 2012)

We have windmills over here, they are spreading like wildfires.

I don't have a problem with them per se, but they only produce power when the wind blows.

Everybody I know wants power when they get up in the morning and want to boil a kettle for coffee.......


----------



## btuser (Oct 21, 2012)

Ehouse said:


> It shouldn't be "please, mister developer, if this batch of turbines (shopping mall, factory, etc.) isn't going to be used anymore, would you kindly restore the site?". They should be legally bound to do so.
> 
> Unlike a coal (or NG) plant, wind generation needs no fuel delivered so that's not a valid comparison. Transmission line losses are real and can be greatly reduced by local usage. So put the damn things in Westchester if that's where they need the juice.
> 
> Ehouse


That's right.  It doesn't need fuel delivered.  That should be counted as a plus, especially since the price of wind doesn't change when the Gulf of Hormuz blows up.  Even a domestic fuel (like coal or NG) will skyrocket when stuff like that happens, for no reason other than greed.  Personally I feel that's why the elites are so afraid of renewables, because you can't OWN the wind, or the sun.  There's no way to monopolize it so there's no reason to invest in it.   Who is King Coal?  Old money, that's who.  

As far as transmission losses go that's always been the case.  Transportation is rarely anything over 8%, whether you're talking lamb from Australia or hydro power from Quebec.  Most people live in valleys where the land was fertile and they're closer to water.  Wind is up on the mountain where only crazy people would want to build a house (myself included).   You have to put them where the wind is, but I'm sure I'd change my mind if I had to deal with it and received no benefit.


----------



## raybonz (Oct 21, 2012)

Scotty Overkill said:


> Ray, it's OK for us to disagree on things, no grudges here. I can see why some people are fully "bought into" the windmill thing. I fully agree that we need an alternative, I just disagree that windmills are the way to do it. Like Ehouse stated, just the transmission loss alone (transporting it long distances to the useage site) saps alot of the benefit out of it. And there are much better ways, IMO. Solar, for the homeowner, will eventually be the way to go I think. And the technology is there, it's just unaffordable to the average Joe. We would have to become much less wasteful to make it feasable. I'd love to be able to put solar shingles on my entire workshop roof to generate at least SOME of the electricity we go through here at home, but cannot afford the initial cost yet. Have you looked into tidal power generation? That would be far less of an eyesore, and a never-ending constant (unlike the wind) source of energy, all under water and out of sight. I also like the idea of magma powerplants, using the core power of the earth to generate steam for power. There's also clean gas technology (they're using it in Europe), we need to get off of big oil and start using that here. But we also NEED coal........like it or not. Not to mention we sell an ENORMOUS amount of coal to China, and they (unlike us) pump the emissions directly into the air, no scrubbing or cleaning of it whatsoever. That poison (the stuff that most of our power plants are regulated to clean out before it leaves the smokestack) is going into the same global air that we breathe......until they regulate theirselves (which they probably will NEVER do) our efforts to kill global warming are futile.
> 
> Anyway, I'm good with a difference of opinion, bud........I just see it differently than you. In the end, I want this world to be cleaner for my children and eventually my grandchildren.


The fact that the general public is becoming aware is important and that is happening. The bottom line is we need to wean ourselves off fuels that can be depleted and also we should focus on the cleanest and most reliable methods. The trouble with coal is tends to be very dirty no matter how many pollution controls are placed on it. Another downside is it requires lots of heavy equipment and labor to harvest and transport it which further increases out dependance on oil plus adds the cost of labor. On the upside it creates jobs but I question if this is work I would want to be doing. Whatever is done needs safeguards and studies done to evaluate any impacts that may occur. If solar ever became affordable it would be great to harvest our own power and this too would create good jobs especially on a local level as in small businesses. I am trying to keep an open mind and respect your opinion as well as anyone else. What the public needs are facts not fiction from impartial 3rd party experts (scientists, engineers and conservationists). This will be the challenging part to achieve..

Ray


----------



## Monosperma (Oct 21, 2012)

Realstone said:


> I have a few issues with them. One of them is that the ROI is WAY too high. Another is that they are not dependable sources of power. Another is that they cannot survive financially without subsidies. We do not need more drains on the public purse.


 
Government subsidizes petroleum, big time, but many folks refuse to acknowledge that. Domestically, via non-competitive bidding on cheap and low-royalty permits on federal lands. Imported petroleum is subsidized too, via military/intelligence/diplomatic actions, infrastructure, security of facilities, etc. By the way, can you say "tax breaks" for oil companies? If that's not a direct subsidy, I don't know what is. Government subsidizes coal too, for example, every time coal is transported "cheaply" on a railroad. And don't forget about the huge un-accounted-for externalities of carbon fuel emissions (disease to living things) which are generally not included in the accounting. If you were to include these very real factors (there are not the only subsidies, by the way) in the computation of ROI, suddenly wind is competing.



Ehouse said:


> It shouldn't be "please, mister developer, if this batch of turbines (shopping mall, factory, etc.) isn't going to be used anymore, would you kindly restore the site?". They should be legally bound to do so.
> 
> Unlike a coal (or NG) plant, wind generation needs no fuel delivered so that's not a valid comparison. Transmission line losses are real and can be greatly reduced by local usage. So put the damn things in Westchester if that's where they need the juice.
> 
> Ehouse


 
I agree, wind producers should be required to restore one day, same as mining.  Re fuel delivery, I think that is EXACTLY the comparison, EXACTLY the point.  No fuel required for operation.  Re transmission line losses, does physics exact a greater tax on wind-generated electricity than on coal or NG-generated electricity?  Isn't that more or less a constant which increases at the same rate over distance, regardless of energy source, be it solar, nuclear, wind, fossil, etc.?


----------



## save$ (Oct 21, 2012)

I got right up to them and couldn't hear a thing.  but then my wife says I never hear her either.   You know one of the reasons your gas cost so much is that there is the undercurrent to keep gas prices up so alturnative power will be competative.  As for Tidal power,  just mention that in ary area and the fishermen will take up arms. They are sure it disrups their trade.
Fact of the mater is that about the only user friendly power is solar. The rest has a lot of people messing their pants for what ever reason they can come up with.


----------



## btuser (Oct 21, 2012)

Gas is not expensive.  It's incredibly cheap compared to almost every alternative.  It's a miracle it's not higher than it is.


----------



## raybonz (Oct 21, 2012)

btuser said:


> Gas is not expensive. It's incredibly cheap compared to almost every alternative. It's a miracle it's not higher than it is.


Give it time it will be!

Ray


----------



## skyline (Oct 21, 2012)

Haven't been on here in a while but thought I would post a few pics I took last year over Eastern WA & OR. Power generation is a tradeoff. You can't just say you don't want one kind without saying what you do want, even though folks do it all the time. While I wouldn't want one of the towers above my house, I sure think they look great from a distance. That and knowing a bunch of US farmers are getting a serious bonus check instead of some sheik feels a lot better to me. That they are also clean, domestic and that the more distributed our power resources are, the less vulnerable we are to any single event feels better too.


----------



## raybonz (Oct 21, 2012)

skyline said:


> Haven't been on here in a while but thought I would post a few pics I took last year over Eastern WA & OR. Power generation is a tradeoff. You can't just say you don't want one kind without saying what you do want, even though folks do it all the time. While I wouldn't want one of the towers above my house, I sure think they look great from a distance. That and knowing a bunch of US farmers are getting a serious bonus check instead of some sheik feels a lot better to me. That they are also clean, domestic and that the more distributed our power resources are, the less vulnerable we are to any single event feels better too.
> View attachment 78164
> View attachment 78165
> View attachment 78166


Wow cool pics!

Ray


----------



## Realstone (Oct 21, 2012)

Monosperma said:


> Government subsidizes petroleum, big time, but many folks refuse to acknowledge that.


If only that were true. Any piddly amount that the government subsidizes 'Big Oil' is eclipsed by the sheer amount of revenue they pay out to governments through job creation and taxes at multiple levels.


----------



## Realstone (Oct 21, 2012)

Here is the problem with wind and solar:


woodchip said:


> I don't have a problem with them per se, but they only produce power when the wind blows.
> 
> Everybody I know wants power when they get up in the morning and want to boil a kettle for coffee...


Nicely put woodchip. The power from both these sources is sporadic and intermittent; unreliable. Our society highly depends on reliable power, on demand.

But I think there is a solution. The shortcoming of these two power sources is that there is no efficient (read: cost efficient) storage of energy (by the way, it is grossly inefficient to just feed the power they generate into the grid). So, what to do? What we really need is a better battery. A battery is simply a store of potential energy. What I suggest is to use the windmills for their original purpose which was pumping water uphill. Store the water in a large reservoir and use it to create clean hydro electricity on demand. The spent water could also be released to a lower storage pool so that there is little eco damage.

With both wind and solar, it would be useful to generate hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis on site, right at the source of power. The hydrogen could be transported to a more urban location to avoid transmission line loss. This method also has a near zero eco impact.


----------



## Realstone (Oct 21, 2012)

raybonz said:


> Give it time it will be!
> 
> Ray


The Athabaska oil sands
The Bakken shale formation
The Bazhenov formation
Gasification of coal.

Don't think so.


----------



## eclecticcottage (Oct 21, 2012)

Ehouse said:


> Transmission line losses are real and can be greatly reduced by local usage. So put the damn things in Westchester if that's where they need the juice.
> 
> Ehouse


 
This x1000000000000000000000

They keep talking about putting them in the lake.  OMG do they not understand what's probably in the mud that will be stirred up (retorical question-they do, they don't care, I know...I've followed the LOOW enough to know better)?!  Plus the effects visually.  If NYC need the power, then they can have the generators whatever they are.


----------



## Monosperma (Oct 21, 2012)

Realstone said:


> If only that were true. Any piddly amount that the government subsidizes 'Big Oil' is eclipsed by the sheer amount of revenue they pay out to governments through job creation and taxes at multiple levels.


 
All you have said here is that Big Oil and Big Coal are very, very, big.  Not that they don't presently receive subsidies (which they cling to and jealously guard), and not that they received even more government help early on.  But I think your thoughts on energy storage are spot on.  Solve this, and the world will change.  Personally, I think splitting water into H2 and O2 is indeed the way it will go; the main question being how many intermediate steps, e.g. battery-operated automobiles, will we have to go through to get there.  I'd like to see some research now into how would large-scale release of these gasses, particularly hydrogen, affect our atmosphere.


----------



## seige101 (Oct 21, 2012)

bfunk13 said:


> I agree, i never had a problem with them.
> In Wyoming here, there are lots of wind farms, 99% of them are in the middle of nowhere and on prairie land that no one uses anyway. But the debate is always big about them.



When i drove across country years ago i loved driving through Wyoming along rt 80. The windmills on the tops of the mountains looked awesome. The little oil rigs along the highway were neat to see also


----------



## Ehouse (Oct 22, 2012)

seige101 said:


> When i drove across country years ago i loved driving through Wyoming along rt 80. The windmills on the tops of the mountains looked awesome. The little oil rigs along the highway were neat to see also


 

They won't look so awesome when they start to rust and fall over, and the taxpayer is handed the bill for getting rid of them.


----------



## sesmith (Oct 22, 2012)

Wow, you sure can tell from the responses that it's an election year! It's really unfortunate that energy policy, climate change policy, and the need to switch to renewables is such a politically charged partisan issue.

I've stopped to visit several windmill sites in NY and don't have a problem with them. As long as the appropriate setbacks are used, there is no noise issue.

To the guy from Pa., the disturbance cause by windmill development (that can only be located on hilltops) pales in comparison to the disturbance they're causing down there with gas development! Now, that's something to get riled up about. As far as deer go, some breakup of the landscape, actually benefits those critters, giving them more browse (yes, the same could be said of gas well sites once they are left alone). Those overgrown rodents will get used to anything. My daughter lives in Ithaca, where the overpopulation of them go from yard to yard eating ornamentals and gardens. You have to physically shoo them to get them to move.

A recent NREL study had the following key point:

"Renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the country."

http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/

Wind should be a part of that. It's a locally sourced supply of energy around here. That HELPS with line losses.

Another very good energy read is the book "Sustainable Energy- without all the hot air" by David MacKay, which can be read online for free here:

http://www.withouthotair.com/Contents.html

It's an eye opener. The take home message I got from that book is that the US has the potential to supply all of it's electrical needs with renewables. It makes no sense that we don't work toward that goal as quickly as possible. It's a no-brainer, shouldn't be partisan in nature, and needs to be done.


----------



## nate379 (Oct 22, 2012)

I looked into setting up a windmill at my house and it was just not cost effective at all.  By the time it would be near it's payoff, it would right around the end of it's service life.
AND that was assuming it would be producing near it's output yearly.  It gets windy here, but when we get those storms, it would be TOO much wind for most turbines!

I went with solar panels instead.  30 year warranty, 50ish year expected service life.  No noise, no moving parts, really no maintenance minus maybe cleaning them every year or two.


----------



## eclecticcottage (Oct 22, 2012)

If wind is the future, then put it atop all of the skyscrapers in the big cities that are sucking the power anyway. 

Someone should invent solar panels that work as windows, then they can put those in all those city buildings instead of the reflective films and DO something instead of flapping their lips about how everyone in rural areas should put up with whatever ugly technology comes along that's "green" so THEY can have their AC and 10,000 little electronic devices and plug in cars. 

And that has nothing to do with election year politics.

Nate, we don't have the room for a windmill here, but looked into it when we were looking at a larger property.  I agree, they are WAY too expensive.  I'd like to add some solar here, eventually.  I wish they'd take all the subsidies they give the companies and give them to individuals, I bet more people would have solar (I think Ontario did something like this?  I saw a LOT of solar arrays up there along the lakeshore when we drove around the lake a few weeks ago).  I would love some of the solar shingles-we don't have enough room for the ground mounted arrays.


----------



## nate379 (Oct 22, 2012)

30% rebate right now for solar panels. Probably wind turbines as well. Just claim it on taxes.

2x the juice in solar (4k of panels) vs wind (2k turbine) cost me under 1/2 the price. I don't know exactly how it'll do this winter with the minimal light we have, but the nearly constant light in the summer should balance it out.


----------



## Realstone (Oct 22, 2012)

nate379 said:


> I went with solar panels instead. 30 year warranty, 50ish year expected service life. No noise, no moving parts, really no maintenance minus maybe cleaning them every year or two.


What did you estimate the solar panels ROI at?

*Edit* and is that without subsidies?


----------



## Realstone (Oct 22, 2012)

Monosperma said:


> All you have said here is that Big Oil and Big Coal are very, very, big. Not that they don't presently receive subsidies (which they cling to and jealously guard), and not that they received even more government help early on. But I think your thoughts on energy storage are spot on. Solve this, and the world will change. Personally, I think splitting water into H2 and O2 is indeed the way it will go; the main question being how many intermediate steps, e.g. battery-operated automobiles, will we have to go through to get there. I'd like to see some research now into how would large-scale release of these gasses, particularly hydrogen, affect our atmosphere.


Here's the difference: Big Oil and Big Coal could do very well without tax breaks and subsidies. Big Wind, Big Solar, even Big Eco? Not a chance. Don't get me wrong, I am all for better, cleaner, less invasive ways to do what we do as a society. But it has to be sustainable. Economically sustainable. Believe it or not, it is more important to be sustainable on Wall St. (and Bay St.) than anything else.


----------



## Ehouse (Oct 22, 2012)

sesmith said:


> Wow, you sure can tell from the responses that it's an election year! It's really unfortunate that energy policy, climate change policy, and the need to switch to renewables is such a politically charged partisan issue.
> 
> I've stopped to visit several windmill sites in NY and don't have a problem with them. As long as the appropriate setbacks are used, there is no noise issue.
> 
> ...


 

I'm not going to be pushed into a polarized position on this.  There's nothing partisan about it .  I'm in favor of wind, solar, and hydro energy production.  I'm against their cynical, exploitative, and inappropriate implementation.  Look at a NY map of wind potential that includes offshore.  WTF!  Why are we siting them here?  The NY area is adjacent to the greatest wind potential in the state, (same goes for the greater Buffalo region).  It's the same **** and run formula that works every time.  The wind mills will begin to topple and flop and no one will be around to clean up the mess.

Ehouse


----------



## raybonz (Oct 22, 2012)

eclecticcottage said:


> If wind is the future, then put it atop all of the skyscrapers in the big cities that are sucking the power anyway.
> 
> Someone should invent solar panels that work as windows, then they can put those in all those city buildings instead of the reflective films and DO something instead of flapping their lips about how everyone in rural areas should put up with whatever ugly technology comes along that's "green" so THEY can have their AC and 10,000 little electronic devices and plug in cars.
> 
> ...


Fiber optics would allow for this..

Ray


----------



## eclecticcottage (Oct 22, 2012)

Ehouse said:


> I'm not going to be pushed into a polarized position on this. There's nothing partisan about it . I'm in favor of wind, solar, and hydro energy production. I'm against their cynical, exploitative, and inappropriate implementation. Look at a NY map of wind potential that includes offshore. WTF! Why are we siting them here? The NY area is adjacent to the greatest wind potential in the state, (same goes for the greater Buffalo region). It's the same **** and run formula that works every time. The wind mills will begin to topple and flop and no one will be around to clean up the mess.
> 
> Ehouse


 
Oh, but think of all the JOBS it will create (rolleyes).  I agree.  Let those with the demand create the supply in their own backyards for a change.

What's ironic to me is, there used to be windmills along the shore of Lake Erie just below Buffalo years ago.  They flopped and after sitting around as rusty hulks for years were torn down.  Guess what's back on the shore there?

I know it sounds very much like it's soley because of where we live, but I seriously don't want turbines IN the lakes (off shore).  It's like everyone forgot how polluted they were, and are.  Remember being told not to eat the fish you caught in Lake Erie or Ontario?  Niagara Falls' plants dumped how many tons of chemicals and toxic garbage into the river (CWM in Lewiston still does)?  And that's what they admit to.  A big lot of the manhattan project work was done here (google artvoice the bomb that fell on niagara falls).  Like none of that wound up in Ontario.  And that's just on this side-I'm sure Canada contributed as well.  Now let's go stir up all that sediment and build in it?!  Seriously?!


----------



## semipro (Oct 22, 2012)

Realstone said:


> If only that were true. Any piddly amount that the government subsidizes 'Big Oil' is eclipsed by the sheer amount of revenue they pay out to governments through job creation and taxes at multiple levels.


 
It seems to me that the majority of the money we've spent on "defense" over the last 30-50 years has actually been used to ensure our supply of cheap overseas oil.
I consider that a subsidy.


----------



## Monosperma (Oct 22, 2012)

Realstone said:


> Here's the difference: Big Oil and Big Coal could do very well without tax breaks and subsidies. Big Wind, Big Solar, even Big Eco? Not a chance. Don't get me wrong, I am all for better, cleaner, less invasive ways to do what we do as a society. But it has to be sustainable. Economically sustainable. Believe it or not, it is more important to be sustainable on Wall St. (and Bay St.) than anything else.


 
Big Oil and Big Coal have already had decades of direct and indirect government support, particularly when starting up and growing. (So did hydro, by the way.) Wind and even moreso solar are still in the youth of technological development. To my thinking, you are comparing a kindergarten kid with an NFL linebacker, whom we have supported for decades since he was small, saying the kindergartener cannot compete on his own with the linebacker thus the kindergartener does not merit receiving support.


----------



## Realstone (Oct 22, 2012)

They are self sustaining and always have been.  Both were private enterprises at their inception.
 Can you say the same for wind and solar?  How long would they last without subsidies?


----------



## Realstone (Oct 22, 2012)

Ehouse said:


> I'm not going to be pushed into a polarized position on this.


I agree.  Rarely are any issues black or white on any topic, and I too dislike defending a polar position.  I am not anti-environment, but taking one position in order to state a point of view paints me as such.  For that reason, I'm out.


----------



## raybonz (Oct 22, 2012)

Realstone said:


> They are self sustaining and always have been. Both were private enterprises at their inception.
> Can you say the same for wind and solar? How long would they last without subsidies?


Both are very simple by nature with wind having mechanical aspects that solar doesn't.. Either way both are substantially simpler than ANY conventionally powered prime mover by contrast. I will also add that neither of the above adds ANY pollution whatsoever plus require NO added fuel to create power I would like you to rebut that statement!

Ray


----------



## raybonz (Oct 22, 2012)

Realstone said:


> I agree. Rarely are any issues black or white on any topic, and I too dislike defending a polar position. I am not anti-environment, but taking one position in order to state a point of view paints me as such. For that reason, I'm out.


Your opinions inspire thought and invoked my thought process and are welcome here..

Ray


----------



## Realstone (Oct 22, 2012)

raybonz said:


> Both are very simple by nature with wind having mechanical aspects that solar doesn't.. Either way both are substantially simpler than ANY conventionally powered prime mover by contrast. I will also add that neither of the above adds ANY pollution whatsoever plus require NO added fuel to create power I would like you to rebut that statement!
> 
> Ray


I meant economically viable without subsidy.


----------



## raybonz (Oct 22, 2012)

Realstone said:


> I meant economically viable without subsidy.


RS I do value your opinion.. It is important that we all see both sides of the story and I for one have adjusted my thoughts based on your ideas and those of others. Please stick around I think we can all learn from this..

Respectfully,
Ray


----------



## Realstone (Oct 22, 2012)

raybonz said:


> Your opinions inspire thought and invoked my thought process and are welcome here..
> 
> Ray


Thank you. Did you read/consider what I proposed


----------



## raybonz (Oct 22, 2012)

Realstone said:


> Thank you. Did you read/consider what I proposed in this post?


Steve I have considered all you have said as well as what others have said and am weighing it all as I hope you're doing as well.

Ray


----------



## raybonz (Oct 22, 2012)

Realstone said:


> Thank you. Did you read/consider what I proposed


BTW that link is not working here..

Ray


----------



## Realstone (Oct 22, 2012)

Windmills in our mountains. What's so bad?
That works.  Couldn't get the text to hyperlink


----------



## basod (Oct 22, 2012)

raybonz said:


> Both are very simple by nature with wind having mechanical aspects that solar doesn't.. Either way both are *substantially simpler* than ANY conventionally powered prime mover by contrast. I will also add that neither of the above adds ANY pollution whatsoever plus require NO added fuel to create power I would like you to rebut that statement!
> 
> Ray


Apparently you've pulled a gearbox from 250-300' up tower.  Fairly regular occurance on machines with low hours. Lots of moving auxiliaries in those nacelles - yaw motor/gears etc.

Compared with gas turbines I work on that'll run 28-32k hours depending on hardware life cycles.  The GT engine may seem more complex(it's auxilliary systems might be the machine is just a big pinwheel) but then I'd have to have ~85 wind turbines or 800+ acres of PV panels to make the power of just one of 4 machines that sit on a combined area of less than 20acres.


----------



## raybonz (Oct 22, 2012)

basod said:


> Apparently you've pulled a gearbox from 250-300' up tower. Fairly regular occurance on machines with low hours. Lots of moving auxiliaries in those nacelles - yaw motor/gears etc.
> 
> Compared with gas turbines I work on that'll run 28-32k hours depending on hardware life cycles. The GT engine may seem more complex(it's auxilliary systems might be the machine is just a big pinwheel) but then I'd have to have ~85 wind turbines or 800+ acres of PV panels to make the power of just one of 4 machines that sit on a combined area of less than 20acres.


Basod there are growing pains with anything new so I expect this with these new technologies too. I did not say they were perfect and in time they will improve like anything else.

Ray


----------



## raybonz (Oct 22, 2012)

Realstone said:


> Here is the problem with wind and solar:
> Nicely put woodchip. The power from both these sources is sporadic and intermittent; unreliable. Our society highly depends on reliable power, on demand.
> 
> But I think there is a solution. The shortcoming of these two power sources is that there is no efficient (read: cost efficient) storage of energy (by the way, it is grossly inefficient to just feed the power they generate into the grid). So, what to do? What we really need is a better battery. A battery is simply a store of potential energy. What I suggest is to use the windmills for their original purpose which was pumping water uphill. Store the water in a large reservoir and use it to create clean hydro electricity on demand. The spent water could also be released to a lower storage pool so that there is little eco damage.
> ...


Good stuff Steve and I have felt for at least 10 yrs. that hydrogen should the gasoline of tomorrow as the only emissions are water and CO2 if I remember correctly! Did you have a chance to read the Mother Earth News story I posted here too? Like I said we need to see the big picture to understand the story.

Ray


----------



## raybonz (Oct 22, 2012)

basod said:


> Apparently you've pulled a gearbox from 250-300' up tower. Fairly regular occurance on machines with low hours. Lots of moving auxiliaries in those nacelles - yaw motor/gears etc.
> 
> Compared with gas turbines I work on that'll run 28-32k hours depending on hardware life cycles. The GT engine may seem more complex(it's auxilliary systems might be the machine is just a big pinwheel) but then I'd have to have ~85 wind turbines or 800+ acres of PV panels to make the power of just one of 4 machines that sit on a combined area of less than 20acres.


Don't forget the systems you mention* require fossil fuels* as the prime mover...


----------



## Realstone (Oct 22, 2012)

raybonz said:


> Good stuff Steve and I have felt for at least 10 yrs. that hydrogen should the gasoline of tomorrow as the only emissions are water and CO2 if I remember correctly! Did you have a chance to read the Mother Earth News story I posted here too? Like I said we need to see the big picture to understand the story.
> 
> Ray


I'll check that later Ray. With a power storage system it is possible to take the power the wind or solar generates directly on-line if the reserved power (either hydrogen or head of water) is immediately available as a backup for when the wind stops blowing or it gets dark.

But I am not for it if it is not economically viable without subsidy. Research, prepare now, yes indeed. But don't spend the kids money doing it in the process.


----------



## basod (Oct 22, 2012)

raybonz said:


> Don't forget the systems you mention* require fossil fuels* as the prime mover...


As noted by Realstone the shale gas deposit plays developed in the last 10yrs have enough gas for north america's energy needs plus exportation for the next 100+years.
Gas prices aren't going anywhere in our lifetime - unless we decide to put it at a competitive disadvantage.

Wind turbines and solar panels aren't going to keep your fridge cold, ac huming or power the ever growing number of electronic devices in our lives without taking over 1/3-1/2 of the real estate in america.
I'm all for having a diverse (including green) energy portfolio in america - fossil fuels aren't going away though


----------



## Realstone (Oct 22, 2012)

Besides, what's so bad about CO2 anyway?  It is one of the prime building blocks of life.  Where the climate is warmer and wetter, life abounds.  Combine this with higher CO2, and you have an even greater abundance of life.  Reduce CO2 and make the climate cooler and drier?  Prepare for austerity.


----------



## eclecticcottage (Oct 22, 2012)

raybonz said:


> Both are very simple by nature with wind having mechanical aspects that solar doesn't.. Either way both are substantially simpler than ANY conventionally powered prime mover by contrast. I will also add that neither of the above adds ANY pollution whatsoever plus require NO added fuel to create power I would like you to rebut that statement!
> 
> Ray


 
NO pollution?  Sorry, but no.  The manufacturing of them does in fact, create pollution at some level.  The mining of the raw materials, the refining, the actual process of creating the end result, the shipping to the location.  There is NO zero pollution answer, when all variables are considered.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 22, 2012)

Realstone said:


> Besides, what's so bad about CO2 anyway? It is one of the prime building blocks of life. Where the climate is warmer and wetter, life abounds. Combine this with higher CO2, and you have an even greater abundance of life. Reduce CO2 and make the climate cooler and drier? Prepare for austerity.


 
Great discussion....but the models suggest that rapid global warming (i.e. faster than centuries) leads to strongly drier climates. Basically, the land warms up faster than the ocean, and that inhibits condensation over land.

That turns wetter only after ocean temps catch up centuries later. IOW, the climate record which shows warmer=wetter is not relevant for the AGW case.


----------



## eclecticcottage (Oct 22, 2012)

raybonz said:


> Good stuff Steve and I have felt for at least 10 yrs. that hydrogen should the gasoline of tomorrow as the only emissions are water and CO2 if I remember correctly! Did you have a chance to read the Mother Earth News story I posted here too? Like I said we need to see the big picture to understand the story.
> 
> Ray


 This has always boggled me a little.  Where is the water supposed to come from, to do this?  What will happen when hundreds of thousands of vehicles use this technology, releasing water into environments like the desert?  Will we be moving water from one location to another, by processing it as a fuel in area a and using it in area b?  What happens in areas that are subject to extreme cold-will the vapor freeze before it's exhausted from the engine?  Or even in the engine?


----------



## Flatbedford (Oct 22, 2012)

Ehouse said:


> . So put the damn things in Westchester if that's where they need the juice.
> 
> Ehouse


 
We'll trade you our nuke plant for your windmills.


----------



## raybonz (Oct 22, 2012)

eclecticcottage said:


> This has always boggled me a little. Where is the water supposed to come from, to do this? What will happen when hundreds of thousands of vehicles use this technology, releasing water into environments like the desert? Will we be moving water from one location to another, by processing it as a fuel in area a and using it in area b? What happens in areas that are subject to extreme cold-will the vapor freeze before it's exhausted from the engine? Or even in the engine?


Water really never is gone it is relocated..

Ray


----------



## raybonz (Oct 22, 2012)

Flatbedford said:


> We'll trade you our nuke plant for your windmills.


No thanx we are stuck with one now!


----------



## Realstone (Oct 22, 2012)

raybonz said:


> Water really never is gone it is relocated..
> 
> Ray


I don't think that the amount of water produced would add up to an important degree.  But I'm no expert.


----------



## Realstone (Oct 22, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> Great discussion....but the models suggest that rapid global warming (i.e. faster than centuries) leads to strongly drier climates. Basically, the land warms up faster than the ocean, and that inhibits condensation over land.
> 
> That turns wetter only after ocean temps catch up centuries later. IOW, the climate record which shows warmer=wetter is not relevant for the AGW case.


That is of course if you believe the models.  And never mind the hockey sticks!


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 22, 2012)

Realstone said:


> That is of course if you believe the models. And never mind the hockey sticks!


 
Yeah, I don't want to rehash THAT. Just saying by the same token, you can't pull the 'higher CO2 would be an agricultural paradise' out of thin air
either.


----------



## Ehouse (Oct 22, 2012)

Where is frack water supposed to come from, and what happens to it after it displaces shale gas?  There seem to be lots of competing uses for this fast diminishing resource.

Ehouse


----------



## basod (Oct 22, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> Yeah, I don't want to rehash THAT. Just saying by the same token, you can't pull the 'higher CO2 would be an agricultural paradise' out of thin air
> either.


If I had a government grant and future funding from nations around the world, I'm sure we could piece together enough "evidence" and subsequently build models that would prove it's "fact".
Then release it to the media, convince a bunch of mindless drones(hollywood) it's fact and call anyone who debates the theory a flat-earther, eventually everyone would come around


----------



## eclecticcottage (Oct 22, 2012)

raybonz said:


> Water really never is gone it is relocated..
> 
> Ray


 
That is part of the problem.


----------



## raybonz (Oct 22, 2012)

eclecticcottage said:


> That is part of the problem.


Please explain that to me.. Water evaporates then is transported via clouds back to the earth.. A never ending cycle..

Ray


----------



## Realstone (Oct 22, 2012)

basod said:


> If I had a government grant and future funding from nations around the world, I'm sure we could piece together enough "evidence" and subsequently build models that would prove it's "fact".
> Then release it to the media, convince a bunch of mindless drones(hollywood) it's fact and call anyone who debates the theory a flat-earther, eventually everyone would come around


Nuts.  I got off on the wrong floor again.  Now, how do I get out of the ash can?


----------



## Realstone (Oct 22, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> Yeah, I don't want to rehash THAT. Just saying by the same token, you can't pull the 'higher CO2 would be an agricultural paradise' out of thin air
> either.


Is 'thin air', CO2 enhanced?


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 22, 2012)

basod said:


> If I had a government grant and future funding from nations around the world, I'm sure we could piece together enough "evidence" and subsequently build models that would prove it's "fact".
> Then release it to the media, convince a bunch of mindless drones(hollywood) it's fact and call anyone who debates the theory a flat-earther, eventually everyone would come around


 
sigh.


----------



## bfunk13 (Oct 22, 2012)

I work in the oil and gas industry.
My job is called a "pumper" or lease operator, basically the guy who tends the wellheads and surface equipment. Responsible for all production and maintenance.
The field i work in has over 3000 natural gas wells. Everyone from BP, Conoco Philips, Anadarko, Devon and many small producers are in this field.
I always love energy debates. I had a lady tell me once "oh you work out there?, it's a shame what they have done to that land".
As she drives a Hummer and a motor home and heats a 3000 sq. ft. home. Where do people think this comes from? Why import energy from countries that use our money against us?
First of all Wyoming is a beautiful state, but many many miles are desolate and deserted prairie land. This field is one of those places that is literally in the middle of nowhere, 80 miles each way to the closest town, so why not drill it, make some jobs and get some energy out of it.

Here is a picture of where i work


----------



## GaryGary (Oct 22, 2012)

bfunk13 said:


> I work in the oil and gas industry.
> My job is called a "pumper" or lease operator, basically the guy who tends the wellheads and surface equipment. Responsible for all production and maintenance.
> The field i work in has over 3000 natural gas wells. Everyone from BP, Conoco Philips, Anadarko, Devon and many small producers are in this field.
> I always love energy debates. I had a lady tell me once "oh you work out there?, it's a shame what they have done to that land".
> ...


 
Seems to me that the harm is from the CO2 emissions when you burn the oil and gas and from the methane leaks out in the field and elsewhere.  
You could put wind turbines out there without those adverse effects -- not to mention saving that lady about $10K a year by improving her energy use habits 

Just getting our energy efficiency to a reasonable level would end the imports and greatly reduce emissions.

gary


----------



## Realstone (Oct 22, 2012)

Gary, there is a growing contingent that believes that CO2 is not a pollutant, but essential to life.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 23, 2012)

Realstone said:


> Gary, there is a growing contingent that believes that CO2 is not a pollutant, but essential to life.


 
I don't see why it can't be both.   Word games.  Noone is saying that CO2 is not essential to life or worried that the earth is gonna run so low on CO2 that the plants all shut down for want of that essential molecule.  There ARE plenty of folks saying that higher CO2 could lead to conditions where much of the existing biosphere is either temperature maladapted, subject to new pests, destroyed by frequent/persistent drought conditions, ocean acidification or all of the above.


----------



## eclecticcottage (Oct 23, 2012)

raybonz said:


> Please explain that to me.. Water evaporates then is transported via clouds back to the earth.. A never ending cycle..
> 
> Ray


 
Without knowing population densities of the future as well as where they would choose to site the "manufacturing" (for lack of a better word) facility for this, this is just a scenario.

We live next to one of the Great Lakes.  People have been trying to get their hands on that water for various things for years.  Water rights and usage are a big deal to me because of this.


Let's assume a few things, since no one can look into the future.  #1, current population trends continue (rust belt areas, like western NY lose population while areas like Phoenix gain).  #2, whomever is creating this "fuel" will need a fairly large water supply to draw from.  #3, the government continues to allow negative environmental impact in certain areas "for the greater good".  So...

You remove x gallons of water from Lake Erie (a more likely site than Ontario, since there are more large cities on Erie) to create this "fuel" every year.  The fuel is shipped to higher population areas (after all, you don't have too many large water sources in say, Arizona and New Mexico).  Now you have relocated the water.  EVEN though it will come back to the ground as rain, it very likely WONT be coming back where it begain.  So after, say 10 years, you've effectively changed two entire climates.  If they took water from Erie it would also effect the Niagara River, the Welland (shipping) Canal, Lake Ontario and the St Lawrence Seaway.  Hey, I'd love a bigger beach and less erosion, but I really don't think that's the way to do it.  People aren't going to drive less in more arid areas, and they certainly won't stop moving there.  Swimming pools and lawns are already effecting the desert climate-now add in how many hundreds of thousands of cars releasing "harmless water vapor" into the air.

Looking at industry in general, it's not a far reach to assume they will look to fresh water sources for this, instead of the oceans-why need to deal with salinity when it's easier (cheaper) to draw fresh water?

So...they will need water to frack and of course to dump the "harmless after processing" waste back into.  they will need it for this "green" fuel.  To irrigate.  To drink.  To cool the reactors.  Eventually, there's not going to be enough to go around.


----------



## raybonz (Oct 23, 2012)

eclecticcottage said:


> Without knowing population densities of the future as well as where they would choose to site the "manufacturing" (for lack of a better word) facility for this, this is just a scenario.
> 
> We live next to one of the Great Lakes. People have been trying to get their hands on that water for various things for years. Water rights and usage are a big deal to me because of this.
> 
> ...


I don't know the process used to create hydrogen but it may be possible using ocean water. Once again we need studies so we are aware of any impact this may have on the environment. We do know that water is a byproduct of hydrogen when burned so while it may be relocated it is not gone. Financially it is currently expensive to create hydrogen and whether it is economically feasible needs to be determined. The bottom line is we can't afford to ignore the dependence on fossil fuels and must explore all avenues to see the best possible solution(s).

Ray


----------



## Realstone (Oct 23, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> I don't see why it can't be both. Word games. Noone is saying that CO2 is not essential to life or worried that the earth is gonna run so low on CO2 that the plants all shut down for want of that essential molecule. There ARE plenty of folks saying that higher CO2 could lead to conditions where much of the existing biosphere is either temperature maladapted, subject to new pests, destroyed by frequent/persistent drought conditions, ocean acidification or all of the above.


You are absolutely correct WG. And as I stated previously, I am not anti-environment or against making changes to preserve (read: steward) what we have. But I am against spending untold billions and possibly trillions world-wide to try to prevent something that:


If the problem occurs, is not actually a net benefit
We're not sure is causing a problem
We're not sure is naturally cyclical
We're not sure if our efforts would cause significant change
We're not convinced that our measuring techniques are accurate and unbiased
We're not sure our predictive models are even close to accurate
And I'm slightly suspicious that _some_ of the skeptics are on the Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Nuclear payroll. And I am suspicious that _some_ of the scientists and pundits of AGW are on the Big Green payroll. And because all of this is a mystery wrapped up in an enigma, I'm not 100% of that.

*Edit*  Truth is stranger than fiction. But conspiracy theory is strangest of all.


----------



## Realstone (Oct 23, 2012)

raybonz said:


> I don't know the process used to create hydrogen but it may be possible using ocean water. Once again we need studies so we are aware of any impact this may have on the environment. We do know that water is a byproduct of hydrogen when burned so while it may be relocated it is not gone. Financially it is currently expensive to create hydrogen and whether it is economically feasible needs to be determined. The bottom line is we can't afford to ignore the dependence on fossil fuels and must explore all avenues to see the best possible solution(s).
> 
> Ray


From what I have read, the bugaboo in hydrogen power is safe containment and transport.  There is an outfit up here (Ballard Power) that poured a lot of time & money into that very thing.  They weren't entirely successful.


----------



## GaryGary (Oct 23, 2012)

Realstone said:


> Gary, there is a growing contingent that believes that CO2 is not a pollutant, but essential to life.


 
I would hope that contingent is shrinking.

Gary


----------



## semipro (Oct 23, 2012)

Realstone said:


> Gary, there is a growing contingent that believes that CO2 is not a pollutant, but essential to life.


 
Although oxygen is essential for most life its highly dangerous as a toxin or oxidant at higher concentrations.
Like many things, its all about balance.


----------



## semipro (Oct 23, 2012)

Realstone said:


> From what I have read, the bugaboo in hydrogen power is safe containment and transport. There is an outfit up here (Ballard Power) that poured a lot of time & money into that very thing. They weren't entirely successful.


Agreed.  Also, it still takes energy to produce and compress hydrogen.


----------



## raybonz (Oct 23, 2012)

Realstone said:


> From what I have read, the bugaboo in hydrogen power is safe containment and transport. There is an outfit up here (Ballard Power) that poured a lot of time & money into that very thing. They weren't entirely successful.


I feel it is safer than gasoline and if spilled doesn't cause massive pollution problems however it is as flammable as gas. There is no perfect solution.

Ray


----------



## Realstone (Oct 23, 2012)

raybonz said:


> I feel it is safer than gasoline and if spilled doesn't cause massive pollution problems however it is as flammable as gas. There is no perfect solution.
> 
> Ray


No. Like Semipro stated above, it is all about balance.


----------



## Realstone (Oct 23, 2012)

GaryGary said:


> GaryGary said:
> 
> 
> > Realstone said: ↑
> ...





semipro said:


> Although oxygen is essential for most life its highly dangerous as a toxin or oxidant at higher concentrations.
> Like many things, its all about balance.


A fivefold increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would not be toxic to anything, yet would be very beneficial to plant life and would benefit us. Source: The Engineering Toolbox


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 23, 2012)

Realstone said:


> A fivefold increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would not be toxic to anything, yet would be very beneficial to plant life and would benefit us. Source: The Engineering Toolbox


 
A fivefold increase in a greenhouse might be a good idea....on a planetwide scale, um, thanks but no.


----------



## GaryGary (Oct 23, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> A fivefold increase in a greenhouse might be a good idea....on a planetwide scale, um, thanks but no.


 
The fact that a five fold increase on CO2 levels would not have any immediate toxic effects does not mean that it would not have disastrous effects on the planets climate.

I'd like to suggest a book to you:
http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Crisis-Introductory-Guide-Change/dp/0521732557
Its a very straight forward, very even handed description of the physics behind climate change -- I think you would like it.

Gary

Edit -- actually meant this as an answer to RealStone -- must be too much CO2 in the room.


----------



## Frozen Canuck (Oct 23, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> A fivefold increase in a greenhouse might be a good idea....on a planetwide scale, um, thanks but no.


 
I don't get it either.

Why are so many willing to roll the dice on something that we may not be able to correct if we get it wrong?

Don't get me wrong, I love gambling/playing poker however when I take a seat & lay my money down I am well aware of the odds in virtually every situation. After all there are only 52 cards in the deck to begin each hand with. Pretty simple.

Not so with a vastly more complex system like the environment. Also I never place more money on the table than I can afford to lose. When we gamble with our environment can we afford to lose?

What the heck are our options to breathing air & drinking water? Seems like an all in blind bet to me. That's bad poker folks. Time to recalculate the odds. The stakes may be a lot higher than many of us imagine.


----------



## Realstone (Oct 23, 2012)

Frozen Canuck said:


> I don't get it either.
> 
> Why are so many willing to roll the dice on something that we may not be able to correct if we get it wrong?
> 
> ...


I feel the same way about gambling untold billions and even trillions of dollars on something we don't even have a grasp on.


----------



## macmaine (Oct 23, 2012)

I too like looking at the spinning windmills as I see FUTURE technology besting old combustion technology.

In the end,  Math wins:

Fossil Fuels are finite therefore will increase in price , yes even nat gas over time. Supply demand will always apply.

Renewables prices  are falling like a leaf, Solar is really falling and wind is now cheaper than Nat gas or Coal to make new plants.
In fact more renewable energy was put up in the last 2 years than dirty Fossil Fuels, just like Flat screen TV took over Cathode Ray tube TV, noone noticed when the
new technololgy crossed over, as one always assumed the "incumbent" ( cathode ray tubes, typwriters, mainframe computers, desktop computers, blackberries) would always dominate.

When the crossover comes and renewables are much cheaper than  FF (with or without subsidies) guess what consumers are going to pick?

Right now Sungevity and Solarcity in California  offer NO money down solar rooftop leases.
Suppose your bill is $200 a month for "grid" electricity.
You pay $100 a month lease, $50 to electric company , you pocket $50 a month

Also in addition to saving us money, and creating jobs, renewables will decrease CO2 production which will help slow down melting the ice caps.
Win, win win!


PS see story about how Germany produced 50% of the entire country electricty from solar and wind in May 2012
This with no "battery backup:!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/26/us-climate-germany-solar-idUSBRE84P0FI20120526



Tom


----------



## Frozen Canuck (Oct 23, 2012)

Realstone said:


> I feel the same way about gambling untold billions and even trillions of dollars on something we don't even have a grasp on.


 
Agreed, so why not slow down & learn the game before we lay our money down? On either side of the bet.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 24, 2012)

Realstone said:


> I feel the same way about gambling untold billions and even trillions of dollars on something we don't even have a grasp on.


 
Who wants to spend trillions now? Are you in favor of efficiency programs that (you or economists you trust) say will save individuals and the US money?? Can we start on those? Cuz right now we're not. Or do we have to wait on those until every last person on earth has been convinced of AGW, which will be sometime after the oceans have started to boil! (um, that last bit won't happen for another billions years)


----------



## sesmith (Oct 24, 2012)

Realstone said:


> I feel the same way about gambling untold billions and even trillions of dollars on something we don't even have a grasp on.


 
There's so much good science out there these days that does have a grasp on the problem. People just don't want to see what they don't want to see. It's way too easy to do the same old same old and, stuff one's head in the sand.

So many solutions to the problem are a win-win. Conservation efforts will save money for those who conserve even though it costs money for insulation, for instance. There is a quick payback. I personally put in a ground source heat pump and beefed up my insulation levels. Lots of money up front. Payback less than 7 years. So now my old housing stock home is much more efficient, and will remain that way for the next generation. As solar pv pricing comes down, pv is a viable option for a homeowner. So is solar thermal. New air source heat pump technology is a no-brainer for new construction. On a national level, making the electric grid more reliable, more efficient, and more resilient is good business, no matter the electricity source. Taking the electricity source to renewables makes long-term economic sense as well as from a climate change perspective. Cars that are more efficient and less polluting are a win-win for everyone.

Unfortunately, most people and businesses won't do the right thing. This is not because we as Americans can't afford to. Heck, we are one of the wealthiest nations in the world. It's because we're afraid of change, and tend to ignore anything that requires long term planning. Most people will choose to do nothing, rather than invest in something new that can pay for itself within 5-10 years with fuel savings.

So the role of the government has to be to force legislation to make some of this happen and provide incentives to push people over the edge to do what's right. I dislike rules as much as the next guy, but CAFE standards for cars, minimum energy standards for new construction, and pollution controls for industry are a necessary evil to protect us from ourselves.

That, in a nutshell, is why I said in a previous post, that this has become a partisan, political issue, and that it's really unfortunate that it is. It shouldn't be.


----------



## Ehouse (Oct 24, 2012)

I just quickly scanned through the New York Power Authority web site.  It contains much information relevant to this discussion,  including an interactive visual display of the proposed wind project for Long island Sound. ( Through the link to the Long Island Power Authority).

Ehouse


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 24, 2012)

macmaine said:


> PS see story about how Germany produced 50% of the entire country electricty from solar and wind in May 2012
> This with no "battery backup:!
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/26/us-climate-germany-solar-idUSBRE84P0FI20120526


 
Love the message, but you misread the article....it was 50% when the sun was shining, prob more like 5% of electricity on
a yearly average basis, which is still DAMNED impressive for the new kid on the block.


----------



## begreen (Oct 25, 2012)

basod said:


> No more PTC in 2013=no new wind turbines in US.
> Solar is the new wind.


 
That might work if there was 24/7 sunshine being harvested. Wind in some areas is like the tides, much more consistent round the clock.


----------



## Realstone (Oct 25, 2012)

macmaine said:


> I too like looking at the spinning windmills as I see FUTURE technology besting old combustion technology.
> 
> In the end, Math wins:
> 
> ...


There is no free lunch Tom.  Even if the government pays you money to stick a solar panel on your roof, you still pay for it. 

On another note, here is proof of my concern about going 'all in' on green initiatives: 


> When Germany’s power grid operator announced the exact amount of next year’s green energy levy on Monday, it came as a shock to the country. The cost burden for consumers and industry have reached a “barely tolerable level that threatens the de-industrialization of Germany”, outraged business organisations said. Since then politicians, business representatives and green energy supporters have been arguing about who is to blame for the “electricity price hammer”. After all, did not Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) promise that green energy subsidies would not be more than 3.6 cents per kilowatt hour? Now, however, German citizens have to support renewable energy by more than EUR 20 billion – instead of 14 billion Euros. How could Merkel be so wrong? --Daniel Wentzel, Die Welt, 20 October 2012


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 25, 2012)

Indeed.  Solar is still a little dear in locations with a poor resource (i.e. cloudy).  Most of the lower 48 has a better solar resource than Germany, the Southwest almost 2x as good.


----------



## Realstone (Oct 25, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> Indeed. Solar is still a little dear in locations with a poor resource (i.e. cloudy). Most of the lower 48 has a better solar resource than Germany, the Southwest almost 2x as good.


As a resident of Ontario, Canada, I think we would be better off farming out our solar to Arizona and our wind farms to Newfoundland.  If you're going to do it, do it right.  Most of what we see are virtual political photo ops.


----------



## macmaine (Oct 26, 2012)

Realstone said:


> There is no free lunch Tom. Even if the government pays you money to stick a solar panel on your roof, you still pay for it.


 
The government does not pay me money, I keep more of my income. I would prefer to have cash on hand to help with  this though!
Why not take a tax break if it is there? If you can write off your interest on your house why not the energy plant on top of your house?
Regardless my point was that the *actual cost of producing solar panels* is dropping by 5% per year.
That is, the  real cost of solar is dropping with or without subsidies. Remember this was discovered only 60 years ago in Bell Labs so it is still very young.
It is an old story like the Bowman brain calculator costing $150 in 1970 now they are free, same thing with computers, cell phones. EVERYONE has a smart phone now
(except my kids who like to  point this out  ). As production ramps up cost come down and savings are passed on to the consumer.
10 years ago California had subsidy for manufacturing of $4.50/watt. As production matured, that subsidy went down, now under $1/watt. Soon it wont be needed.



Realstone said:


> As a resident of Ontario, Canada, I think we would be better off farming out our solar to Arizona and our wind farms to Newfoundland. If you're going to do it, do it right. Most of what we see are virtual political photo ops.


That is one way to do it and we may need that , indeed Proposal today to run a DC line from our friendly northern neighbor in New Brunswick and Quebec through Maine to
carry renewable energy electrons to southern New England. This would be taking the very inexpensive Canadian Hydro and Wind to large CT and MA markets that have mandates for 20+ % renewable energy portfolio.
This is a nice regional solution that could really work in the future.
http://www.pressherald.com/news/huge-power-line-project-proposed_2012-10-25.html#

I like the idea of a distributed network to augment that model. That is produce the electricity with your local resources as well.(wind solar hydro geo, biomass)
Less line loss, and use the electrons as you produce them.

The solar resource in  Ontario is likely better than in cloudy Germany ( Toronto at 43 degrees, Bonn 50 degrees latitude!)
You would be surprised about the amount you could bank on those long June and July days...



woodgeek said:


> Love the message, but you misread the article....it was 50% when the sun was shining, prob more like 5% of electricity on
> a yearly average basis, which is still DAMNED impressive for the new kid on the block.


 
My apologies about the Germany example I did not make it clear this  was on a single weekend in May. 
One thing to remember is that PEAK electricity is when the sun is out on HOT days, when the solar resource is at its peak.
California has need for 50 Gigawatts on hot summer days, but goes down to 30 Gigawatts at night. Utilities need almost 100% more on hot summer day.
Using distributed network, you reduce line losses, and decrease the need for substations, etc.
If Utilities can use the solar to shut down Peak Gas plants which are very expensive, all ratepayers benefit
The point is we do not need storage(which is coming) until we get routine penetration of solar to 50-60% which is a long ways off.



Realstone said:


> On another note, here is proof of my concern about going 'all in' on green initiatives:


 
Sorry tried to read this in German  but I am a pathetic American who only reads English
There will be scare tactics whenever a disruptive technology comes along. I mean do we really need to be wedded to coal ?(an 18th century industry)
I would not cry too many tears for the old style Utilities. They need to figure out how to incorporate all this renewable energy in.
They run the risk of having 'stranded asset's' like coal nuke plants that are too expensive in comparison to wind and solar.
The German people have always supported green initiatives and this has spurred the creation of  thousands of jobs in solar. Germany has the 2nd most robust Solar Manufacturing Industry in the world (behind China).

Peace 
Tom


----------



## raybonz (Oct 26, 2012)

MacMaine it's impractical to send DC great distances because it can't be transformed  like AC this is why the transmission lines are AC. Edison thought DC was the way to go and why he failed and Tesla proved him wrong. The idea is you crank up the voltageto the transmission lines and this reduces the current so you can run small diameter wire. When this high voltage gets to a substation it is transformed to a various voltages and sent to the street to be used by home and industry.

Ray


----------



## btuser (Oct 26, 2012)

raybonz said:


> MacMaine it's impractical to send DC great distances because it can't be transformed like AC this is why the transmission lines are AC. Edison thought DC was the way to go and why he failed and Tesla proved him wrong. The idea is you crank up the voltageto the transmission lines and this reduces the current so you can run small diameter wire. When this high voltage gets to a substation it is transformed to a various voltages and sent to the street to be used by home and industry.
> 
> Ray


They do it in Europe.  High voltage DC current can actually be cheaper to build with lower losses if you're going point-to-point (large dam in the middle of nowhere directly to an urban location). There are trade-offs, but depending on how far you go and what your grid looks like it can be a better choice.


----------



## raybonz (Oct 26, 2012)

btuser said:


> They do it in Europe. High voltage DC current can actually be cheaper to build with lower losses if you're going point-to-point (large dam in the middle of nowhere directly to an urban location). There are trade-offs, but depending on how far you go and what your grid looks like it can be a better choice.


That's news to me! The problem with generating DC is you use a commutator which is a high maintenance wear item whereas with AC you use slip rings this is in turn rectified with a full-wave bridge rectifier which is a low wear low maintenance item. This is why your car has an alternator as the old cars used a generator which were unreliable and required much more repair..

Ray


----------



## oldspark (Oct 26, 2012)

There are some HV DC lines in the US, only on very large operations though and when its sent a good distance, yea it was news to me when I heard it, AC is much better for most applications.


----------



## raybonz (Oct 26, 2012)

oldspark said:


> There are some HV DC lines in the US, only on very large operations though and when its sent a good distance, yea it was news to me when I heard it, AC is much better for most applications.


I am an industrial electrician and despise DC motors as they are trouble prone and require regular maintenance. They also tend to be dirty due to the build up of carbon dust which also is a health hazard. AC motors by contrast require no maintenance and last much longer with bearings being the limiting factor provided the overloads are properly sized and work as advertized.. Modern AC drives work as well as DC drives and actually cheaper than DC drives in most cases. Add to this reduced wire size to the motors for 3 phase motors VS DC motors plus servos are more common and also very precise and reliable.

Ray


----------



## btuser (Oct 26, 2012)

raybonz said:


> That's news to me! The problem with generating DC is you use a commutator which is a high maintenance wear item whereas with AC you use slip rings this is in turn rectified with a full-wave bridge rectifier which is a low wear low maintenance item. This is why your car has an alternator as the old cars used a generator which were unreliable and required much more repair..
> 
> Ray


It's true that DC has a higher maintenance and lower reliability(per se) than AC, but we're talking BIG BIG BIG current.






IProbably all medium transmission (under 19,000 volts) would still be AC as it is now, but when you start getting into 12/ million volts, it makes dollars and cents.  A lot of the problems with the electrical grid comes from trying to balance phases coming from all different directions and from different producers. If if was just a few mega coal/nuke plants that were always online it wouldn't be an issue, but as deregulation has entered the market companies can't afford to have plants idling and often have to import power over greater and greater distances that lead to fragility and the chance of a cascading failure taking out 1/2 the country and parts of Canada.

There are advantages to both. AC is cheaper parts, easy to work on, more easily converted and because we only have 3 grids in this country relatively easy to manage. However, if we're going to bring possibly peak and sporadic renewables online from great distances away like solar from AZ or Wind from off-shore farms (HVDC is the preferred method for underground transmission) it starts to make economic sense.

Gimmie 20 billion- no, 40 billion TOPS and I can make it happen.


----------



## oldspark (Oct 26, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current


----------



## btuser (Oct 26, 2012)

A competing idea is I-765, an interstate project for the entire electrical grid. You get a high power interestate for America's wind resources for the bargain price of 60 billion dollars. Windmills not included:
http://www.elp.com/index/display/ar...xt-interstate-system-765-kv-transmission.html





C'mon people! Let's get excited to build the new infrastructure so the wealthy don't have to pay for it themselves. It worked for the railroad tycoons, why not our future Wind Lords?


----------



## raybonz (Oct 26, 2012)

oldspark said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current


Interesting oldspark I have learned something new today! Thanks for the link pretty interesting!

Ray


----------



## Realstone (Oct 26, 2012)

btuser said:


> C'mon people! Let's get excited to build the new infrastructure so the wealthy don't have to pay for it themselves. It worked for the railroad tycoons, why not our future Wind Lords?


 
$60,000,000,000.00? Not including power generation? On a sporadic power source, storage extra?

Tell me honestly, how much spare cash do you Yanks have. BTW, I know the answer. And lest I boast, we up here are in about the same boat. It's this type of spending mindset that scares me. "If we want it, we can have it. Just borrow the money."

Beware the ides of Greece


----------



## btuser (Oct 26, 2012)

The real number for a smart grid comes in at around 1-3 trillion dollars over a couple decades, which I'm guessing will double by the time everyone gets their fingers in the pie ( "for the children").   That's not including power generation, just a new cart for whatever horse we choose. 

Peanuts.   Absolute peanuts if you count what we're already spending.  Its one of those thing that looks like a lot of money until you realize how much you're wasting on inefficiencies. It could do for American industry the same thing that cheap NG is already doing. 

When energy is cheap and plentiful again we could all go back to heating our houses with the windows open and leaving our lights on all the time.


----------



## Delta-T (Oct 26, 2012)

btuser said:


> When energy is cheap and plentiful again we could all go back to heating our houses with the windows open and leaving our lights on all the time.


 
ah, paradise.....the good old days that actually were....,out of ignorance? yes, but lets not bicker and argue about who killed who, its supposed to be a happy occasion.


----------



## macmaine (Oct 27, 2012)

raybonz said:


> MacMaine it's impractical to send DC great distances because it can't be transformed like AC this is why the transmission lines are AC. Edison thought DC was the way to go and why he failed and Tesla proved him wrong. The idea is you crank up the voltageto the transmission lines and this reduces the current so you can run small diameter wire. When this high voltage gets to a substation it is transformed to a various voltages and sent to the street to be used by home and industry.
> 
> Ray


 
Thanks Raybonz I know there is controversy on this.
I know I know There was a huge pissing match between Edison and Tesla
Interesting that this company wants to build a DC line, Ray you certainly have the background to question the practicalities of this method.
This company  must know about losses, cost etc.

Canadians want to ship all sorts of things to our markets, if it is not expensive Tar Sands oil in the west it is cheap Hydro electrons in the east!


----------



## macmaine (Oct 27, 2012)

btuser said:


> Peanuts. Absolute peanuts if you count what we're already spending. Its one of those thing that looks like a lot of money until you realize how much you're wasting on inefficiencies. It could do for American industry the same thing that cheap NG is already doing.


 

Thats the spirit.

IBM GE and others are leading the way in this new venture.

We spilled blood and a trillion dollars in the Middle East protecting Mobil Exxon assets.
Sounds like BTUSER can get her done with a measly 60 billion!!

Once a smart grid is built, with demand side management of grid and vehicle to grid technology,
(ie turning off 1 million water heater for 20 minutes, turning off most of  So Cal pool cleaner for an hour, taking energy out of my Chevy volt back to the grid)
then the intermittent power sources really shine (sorry for the pun)


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 27, 2012)

Yeah the Tesla/Edison story is fascinating...poor little doggies...but historical at this point.  The technology for efficient DC-DC conversion both on the device scale and the grid scale hadn't been imagined back then.  They were still novelties when I learned EE 20 yrs ago, and now they run every portable electronic device you find.


----------



## raybonz (Oct 27, 2012)

macmaine said:


> Thanks Raybonz I know there is controversy on this.
> I know I know There was a huge pissing match between Edison and Tesla
> Interesting that this company wants to build a DC line, Ray you certainly have the background to question the practicalities of this method.
> This company must know about losses, cost etc.
> ...


Oldspark posted this link which made me rethink what I thought I knew http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current .. Even an old dog can learn new tricks  Tesla is my inventor hero it is amazing how far ahead of his time he was!

Ray


----------



## charly (Nov 1, 2012)

nate379 said:


> seems like a bunch are going up in Maine. Mars Hill has quite a few.


A friend of my actually replaced a few amateur bearings on some of those , a few years back. Lots of potato farms he said.


----------



## raybonz (Nov 1, 2012)

I think you meant armature bearings?

Ray


----------



## willyswagon (Nov 2, 2012)

macmaine said:


> Canadians want to ship all sorts of things to our markets, if it is not expensive Tar Sands oil in the west it is cheap Hydro electrons in the east!


 
No actually we want to keep it all for ourselves, but the Free Trade Agreement states that we can't hold it until it is the last oil, and water left in NA!

China is the new maket for Canadian resources, as the US markets have slowed to much for Canadian companies.

We have a Provincial Wind Farm about 25km(15 miles) from here with another, going up about 16 km(10 miles) from me.
It is great, even though the power is being sold "Off Island" the profits go directly into the Provinces General Revenue for things like schools, roads, and free health care.

The first wind farm paid for itself in 5 yrs. We don't have Oil, Coal, or Hydro, but there is tons of wind energy.
If ya got it, ya might as well harness it!


----------



## btuser (Nov 2, 2012)

willyswagon said:


> No actually we want to keep it all for ourselves, but the Free Trade Agreement states that we can't hold it until it is the last oil, and water left in NA!


I love it when an evil plan comes together.

Mwahahahha!


----------



## raybonz (Nov 2, 2012)

btuser said:


> I love it when an evil plan comes together.
> 
> Mwahahahha!


Pinky: What we gonna do tonight Brain? Nark!
Brain: Tonight Pinky we are going to take over the world!

That was a great cartoon!



Ray


----------

