Another reason ...

[William Sommerwerck]

Perhaps it depends on the distance from them, or maybe the design of the
blades. Either way, noisy or not, they are still a blot on the landscape,
and IMHO, a huge waste of resources for the relatively small amount of
power
that they generate.

Do you have evidence for that, one way or the other?

And actually, who's to say that by 'stealing' the wind, they
don't cause some 'butterfly effect' elsewhere ? Little of what
man does actually has a zero effect on his environment ...

The same thought has crossed my mind, too. But they're unlikely to have a
significant effect, for roughly the same reason that humans are unable to
deliberately modify the weather -- it takes too much energy.


Nuclear reactors don't bother me, much. Nuclear waste does. Do you know what
a pebble bed reactor is? It appears to have the potentional to end all the
problems with nuclear energy, but nobody's doing much about it.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

I don't think that there are many people who are sane, that are against
'alternative' energy, per se. The trick is that the word needs to be
combined with that other little word "practical". That seems to get
forgotten in all this. PV panels are all very well, if you've got a
country
below say 45 deg N, with a lot of unused desert available. Even then, you
have the logistics and losses involved in shifting the power that you
generate, to anywhere that it's needed.

This is not a problem -- not in the US, anyway. We have a big connected
grid.

People keep saying that solar energy doesn't work at night. Correct. But we
need less energy at nigh. The idea is to have a mix of energy sources.

We already have an 'alternative' power technology that is both clean and
practical, and that is nuclear.

You talk about "practical", but what is the "practical" way to get rid of
the waste?

I appreciate that there are potential issues with recycling waste
nuclear material, but I am sure that these are not insurmountable.

It isn't just what's left over from the fuel rods. It's also the stuff that
the radiation contaminaes.

And don't make the mistake of thinking that 'alternative power' is all
about responsible people trying to save the planet. It's not. Whilst such
scientists and eco-minded people may have been at the centre of the
original concepts, it is now all about big business. Selling the public
these
technologies by way of the hysterical global warming issue (trends now
indicate a cooling again BTW, much the same as we were being told back
in the 70s) and pseudo science that has little if any foundation in fact,
is
making huge amounts of money for companies who are having their products
built by the biggest industrial polluters in the world, and don't actually
give a toss about green issues ...

I thought you had more sense. Where do you get this business about "cooling
trends"?

Regardless, global warming ultimately has nothing to do with it. We need
safe, renewable sources of energy. We can't keep burning fossil fuels
indefinitely. THAT problem should be driving us to develop them as quickly
as possible. We should have been working on it aggressively after WW II.
But, no. "The Market" will automatically solve all our problems.

It appears that work on extracting oil from algae (which appear to be the
source of natural oil deposits) has been going on for more than 30 years,
mostly at oil companies. Why do you think we haven't seen any progress?

There are some things that are too important to be left to the people who
profit from them.

 

[N_Cook]

Geoffrey S. Mendelson <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote in message
news:slrnie4q8c.tm9.gsm@cable.mendelson.com...

Arfa Daily wrote:
I don't think that there are many people who are sane, that are against
'alternative' energy, per se. The trick is that the word needs to be
combined with that other little word "practical". That seems to get
forgotten in all this. PV panels are all very well, if you've got a
country
below say 45 deg N, with a lot of unused desert available.

The tax situation also matters. I have a friend who lives near
Philadelphia,
who put an array up on his single family house. He is nowhere near a
desert.

His nominal income tax rate is around 33%. He bought a $30,000 dollar
array and was able to take it off of his income tax, so that reduced the
price to $20k.

He was able to get another $10k off in state tax credits and grants.

Because of the "cap and trade" law, his power company is paying him for
the
right to claim that his array provides power to "the grid" as if they were
doing it, which nets him $2,500 a year. They also pay him per killowat
hour
he does put onto the grid.

It's not 100% free electricty as it has no storage capability, so it
becomes
cloudy, or during the night, he has to buy electrcity. For saftey reasons,
it shuts down if the main electricity goes out.

The array has a long term warranty and is insured as part of his
homeowner's
policy. So basicly, he has invested $10k for a $30k array, and after 4
years,
anything he gets from it in cap and trade fees, reduced electrical bills,
and additional value on his house is free.

Around 2000, a co-worker who lived in the UK (same company, different
offices),
was looking at using special heating cells designed to heat GPS satellites
from "earthshine". His estimate that for 3000 UKP total investment, he
would save 450 UKP a year in gas.

I'm not sure where he lived, it was withing motorcycle commuting distance
of "The City".

I lost touch in 2002, I wonder if it worked? I expect that UK heating gas
bills have gone up in 10 years.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM
To help restaurants, as part of the "stimulus package", everyone must
order
dessert. As part of the socialized health plan, you are forbidden to eat
it.

There is a potential ;-) problem in Germany with so many uncontrolled small
scale PV rooftops if there is a very sunny day coinciding with minimal grid
load.

I wonder if it will be in my lifetime there will be the pan-Europe grid
(probably very high voltage DC strangely) connecting Iceland geothermal /
Norway hydro/ French nuclear / N Africa solar together

 

[William Sommerwerck]

There's another, broader issue here that hardly anyone pays attention to...
overpopulation.

When I was a kid, the world's population reached 2Gcbl, and people were
afraid of starvation, disease, etc. It's now 6Gcbl, and still growing,
partly due to the "green revolution".

You don't need to be Malthus to understand that the Earth doesn't have
infinite carrying capacity. If things don't change, at some point the system
/has/ to collapse.

Somewhere between now and then we will see drastic changes, with governments
controlling the size of the homes we build (probably outlawing single-family
dwellings), how many children we can have, how many calories a day we can
consume, and so forth. (See "Soylent Green". I haven't read Harry Harrison's
"Make Room, Make Room", but the idea of recycling human protein is /not/ in
it.)

You get violently angry when I insist that government force people to do
what's right about trivial things -- such as how you light their homes. Wait
until you see what happens to your /basic/, "inalienable" rights when there
isn't enough land to produce food or house people. And you think Communist
societies are bad...

There are simply too many people. Imagine what things would be like if there
were only 500Mcbl. (By the way, I'm in favor of across-the-board population
reduction. The people in developed countries consume too much of everything,
and there are simply too many people in poor countries.)

The problem of overpopulation is largely due to developed countries
spreading death control, without forcing the people who receive it to
practice birth control. (And I'm not talking about abortion.) If the
potential recipients of death control say "Our religion (or social beliefs,
etc) prohibits birth control," they will hear "Our understanding of biology
prohibits helping people who don't understand what happens when you disrupt
the natural order of things." Which is what death control is -- a disruption
of the natural order, in which disease and lack of food keep populations
from growing rapidly.

If you don't understand this, think of human beings as deer, and disease,
lack of clean water, malnutrition, etc, as wolves. What happens when you
start systematically killing off the wolves?

 

[William Sommerwerck]

There are some things that are too important to be
left to the people who profit from them.

Prime example in the UK.

Thatcher close the coal mines to punish the miners. Only possible
because we had just got North Sea gas on stream. Now, some 20
years later it is getting exhausted and we have to import gas at vast
cost.

Wouldn't it be nice to find a politician who can see beyond the next
election? And actually have the good of the majority in mind?

Unfortunately, both Liberals and Conservatives pass laws based on what they
believe is morally or philosophically correct, without /any/ regard for the
consequences.

There might be unintended consequences, but hardly any of them are
unpredictable.

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

baron wrote:

Ahh, but we are supposed to be the technological leaders... aren't we !

That was so last decade. Now with the "austerity programme" (did I spell
that correctly?), 20% VAT, and multiculturism, you will be just trying
not to get blown up nor starve, to keep the lights on and not
freeze this winter. :-(

You might as well get out those old books on how to make do with food
rations. I don't have them, but read a set someone lent me of reprints
from the Imperial War Museum.

The only problem with them, is that around 1943, supplies of powdered milk
and eggs, and canned pork (SPAM) started to arrive from the US and Canada.
I don't think there will be much to spare this time around. People on food
mailing lists from the US are complaining about the high prices of food, and
the lack of the usual holiday (it's Thanksgiving in the US soon) sales. :-(


Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM
To help restaurants, as part of the "stimulus package", everyone must order
dessert. As part of the socialized health plan, you are forbidden to eat it.

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <ibtu5p$kq9$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

There are some things that are too important to be left to the people who
profit from them.

Prime example in the UK.

Thatcher close the coal mines to punish the miners. Only possible because
we had just got North Sea gas on stream. Now, some 20 years later it is
getting exhausted and we have to import gas at vast cost.

Wouldn't it be nice to find a politician who can see beyond the next
election? And actually have the good of the majority in mind?

--
*Does fuzzy logic tickle? *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:517706f9a9dave@davenoise.co.uk...

In article <owlEo.118903$zz4.81541@newsfe04.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
And actually, who's to say that by 'stealing' the wind, they don't
cause some 'butterfly effect' elsewhere ? Little of what man
does actually has a zero effect on his environment ...


Well, wind power was one of the earliest forms of energy man used for
moving things - sailing ships, windmills, etc. Well before steam was
harnessed.

Perhaps solar power saps the sun's rays too? ;-)

--

Dave Plowman

I'm sure it does Dave, I'm sure it does ...

Arfa

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <ibtvsr$rfa$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

Wouldn't it be nice to find a politician who can see beyond the next
election? And actually have the good of the majority in mind?

Unfortunately, both Liberals and Conservatives pass laws based on what
they believe is morally or philosophically correct, without /any/ regard
for the consequences.

If only that were true. At least it would be honest.

There might be unintended consequences, but hardly any of them are
unpredictable.

Absolutely. There were plenty of predictions about the amount of gas in
'our' part of the North Sea and indeed there is actually more. But it has
been squandered producing 'cheap' electricity. When that can be made from
other means. But other means ain't so good as gas for heating and industry.

--
*I must always remember that I'm unique, just like everyone else. *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[Arfa Daily]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ibttii$isa$1@news.eternal-september.org...

Perhaps it depends on the distance from them, or maybe the design of the
blades. Either way, noisy or not, they are still a blot on the landscape,
and IMHO, a huge waste of resources for the relatively small amount of
power
that they generate.

Do you have evidence for that, one way or the other?

Well, you could try having a read of this one. I know it's a 'popular press'
article and there will of course be people who immediately scream that the
press are all liars, but I think that the basic figures quoted, and some of
the reasons that that are stated for the evangelical take up of this
technology, are probably thereabouts on the money, as I have read similar
ones elsewhere

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/7823681/Does-money-grow-in-wind-farms.html

Arfa

And actually, who's to say that by 'stealing' the wind, they
don't cause some 'butterfly effect' elsewhere ? Little of what
man does actually has a zero effect on his environment ...

The same thought has crossed my mind, too. But they're unlikely to have a
significant effect, for roughly the same reason that humans are unable to
deliberately modify the weather -- it takes too much energy.


Nuclear reactors don't bother me, much. Nuclear waste does. Do you know
what
a pebble bed reactor is? It appears to have the potentional to end all the
problems with nuclear energy, but nobody's doing much about it.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

This is not a problem -- not in the US, anyway.
We have a big connected grid.

Look it up. It's about 33% efficent, ie, 1/3 of the electricity
put into the grid comes out.

I'd like to see the numbers on that. That's a huge loss.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Well, you could try having a read of this one. I know it's a 'popular
press'
article and there will of course be people who immediately scream that the
press are all liars, but I think that the basic figures quoted, and some
of
the reasons that that are stated for the evangelical take up of this
technology, are probably thereabouts on the money, as I have read similar
ones elsewhere


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/7823681/Does-money-grow-in-wind-farms.html

The article doesn't seem stupid or self-serving, but it misses the
fundamental issue -- how much does wind energy actually /cost/, over the
lifetime of the generator? This seems to me much more important than how
efficient the devices are.

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote in message
news:slrnie4q8c.tm9.gsm@cable.mendelson.com...

Arfa Daily wrote:
I don't think that there are many people who are sane, that are against
'alternative' energy, per se. The trick is that the word needs to be
combined with that other little word "practical". That seems to get
forgotten in all this. PV panels are all very well, if you've got a
country
below say 45 deg N, with a lot of unused desert available.

The tax situation also matters. I have a friend who lives near
Philadelphia,
who put an array up on his single family house. He is nowhere near a
desert.

His nominal income tax rate is around 33%. He bought a $30,000 dollar
array and was able to take it off of his income tax, so that reduced the
price to $20k.

He was able to get another $10k off in state tax credits and grants.

Because of the "cap and trade" law, his power company is paying him for
the
right to claim that his array provides power to "the grid" as if they were
doing it, which nets him $2,500 a year. They also pay him per killowat
hour
he does put onto the grid.

It's not 100% free electricty as it has no storage capability, so it
becomes
cloudy, or during the night, he has to buy electrcity. For saftey reasons,
it shuts down if the main electricity goes out.

The array has a long term warranty and is insured as part of his
homeowner's
policy. So basicly, he has invested $10k for a $30k array, and after 4
years,
anything he gets from it in cap and trade fees, reduced electrical bills,
and additional value on his house is free.

Around 2000, a co-worker who lived in the UK (same company, different
offices),
was looking at using special heating cells designed to heat GPS satellites
from "earthshine". His estimate that for 3000 UKP total investment, he
would save 450 UKP a year in gas.

I'm not sure where he lived, it was withing motorcycle commuting distance
of "The City".

I lost touch in 2002, I wonder if it worked? I expect that UK heating gas
bills have gone up in 10 years.

Geoff.

You better believe that they've gone up ! Massively so, because we now seem
to buy all of our gas from energy companies in France, who charge us what
they like. They are, in turn, buying it from the Russians.

All of what you say about your friend in America, duly noted. However, all
it says is that the panels that he put up, were basically all about winning
grants, tax breaks, and subsidies, rather than about the green issue, and
this seems to be the case for most of these alternative technologies. There
was a big debate about all of this 'PV panels on the roof' stuff recently on
another group, and some very well informed people on there did a good job of
taking the figures apart. The bottom line seemed to be that this four year
figure is the one that's always quoted, but due to such things as the
efficiency of the panels dropping for various electrical and physical
reasons, it is almost impossible to achieve the figures that the companies
would try to have you believe. We are now getting a leaflet a week dropping
through the door, trying to convince us to invest in this. Seems that many
of the companies springing up to carry out this work, are basically
untrained, and there is no requirement for them to be. There have apparently
already been cases of panels being installed on roofs that are not strong
enough to carry them ...

Arfa

 

[Arfa Daily]

<snip>

We already have an 'alternative' power technology that is both clean
and practical, and that is nuclear. I really don't know why people
have such a problem with it. The French don't.

I agree the French have embraced the Nuclear nettle and have taken huge
steps to protect the plants from attack by terrorists and the like.
I've seen first hand the twenty foot, triple razor wire, barrier fences
and the deep ditches between them. All the cameras and IR lighting
used to monitor the area. Not small areas either !

I would put them offshore, and protect them with a military presence and gun
batteries. After all, we had the technology to build forts out at sea in
Victorian times, so I'm sure we could do it again for nuclear power plants.
Use the water for direct cooling, as well ...

Arfa

<snip>

> Baron.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote:

baron wrote:
Ahh, but we are supposed to be the technological leaders... aren't we !

That was so last decade. Now with the "austerity programme" (did I spell
that correctly?), 20% VAT, and multiculturism, you will be just trying
not to get blown up nor starve, to keep the lights on and not
freeze this winter. :-(

You might as well get out those old books on how to make do with food
rations. I don't have them, but read a set someone lent me of reprints
from the Imperial War Museum.

The only problem with them, is that around 1943, supplies of powdered milk
and eggs, and canned pork (SPAM) started to arrive from the US and Canada.
I don't think there will be much to spare this time around. People on food
mailing lists from the US are complaining about the high prices of food, and
the lack of the usual holiday (it's Thanksgiving in the US soon) sales. :-(

Food prices go up and down, depending on fuel costs. We have idiots
that want to more than double the current prices. That will more than
triple food prices, and cost a lot of jobs.

I saw 'bone in' uncooked hams for $1.19 a pound yesterday at a
Save-A-Lot store. A family of four caould have a nice Thanksgiving meal
for $20 to $30 and have plenty of leftovers for snacks. The problem
with a lot of people is that they won't look for good prices, or drive
an extra couple miles to save money on food. I shop at six different
supermarkets and at Sam's Club. I don't make a special trip to them
when I can avoid it. I stop in when I have other business in that
area. They are all concentrated in two areas, so I can shop more than
one in a single trip. I am diabetic, and have trouble finding what I
want, and can eat so I can'tt shop in one place.

Most people I know pick one store and buy everthing there, regardless
of prices.


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

I saw 'bone in' uncooked hams for $1.19 a pound yesterday at a
Save-A-Lot store. A family of four caould have a nice Thanksgiving
meal for $20 to $30 and have plenty of leftovers for snacks. The problem
with a lot of people is that they won't look for good prices, or drive
an extra couple miles to save money on food. I shop at six different
supermarkets and at Sam's Club. I don't make a special trip to them
when I can avoid it. I stop in when I have other business in that
area. They are all concentrated in two areas, so I can shop more than
one in a single trip. I am diabetic, and have trouble finding what I
want and can eat, so I can't shop in one place.

The difference in prices among stores -- for exactly the same product -- can
be startling. In the Seattle area, Fred Meyer tends to have the lowest
prices among the major chains, but (of course) Costco can be (and often is)
even lower -- though you don't have the selection, of course.

I occasionally stop by the Oroweat "day-old" store and pay /half/ what I do
at Costco. I rarely pay more than $1.20 for a loaf of rye bread, or $1 for a
box of English muffins -- often less.

I remember some TV show where people were showing how they shopped. One
woman put more than $100 of food in her cart -- then said she didn't have
anything for that night's meal.

Most people I know pick one store and buy everything there,
regardless of prices.

Most people have /no idea whatever/ how to make intelligent purchases.

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

This is not a problem -- not in the US, anyway. We have a big connected
grid.

Look it up. It's about 33% efficent, i.e. 1/3 of the electricity put into
the grid comes out. Still with solar and other passive power that's
mostly an up-front cost, you just need to replace fossil fuel buring plants
with an equivalent output passive system.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM
To help restaurants, as part of the "stimulus package", everyone must order
dessert. As part of the socialized health plan, you are forbidden to eat it.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote in message
news:slrnie5mh2.6l4.gsm@cable.mendelson.com...

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Most people have /no idea whatever/ how to make
intelligent purchases.

Your whole argument is based upon the ability to travel
to different stores and buy different but similar things.

Yes, of course. Where I live, this is absolutely trivial.

For example, you mentioned buying day old bread.
It's similar to fresh bread, but not the same.

Actually, it's identical. Most of the items in Oroweat (and similar) stores
have been pulled shortly before their expiration date -- which is itself
conservative. It's not stale or moldy. No one could tell the difference.

Or that brand X meat is the same as brand Y and so on.

I didn't say that! I said identical items, and I meant it. You wouldn't
believe some of the price differences.

If gas is cheap and you have plenty of time you can do it,
but if you are busy, don't have a car, or can't afford the
gasoline, you are stuck.

Not necessarily. Most stores have weekly ads showing specials, and Websites
listing prices. I live within easy walking distance of two major chains
(Safeway and Albertsons -- there used to be a third, QFC), and Fred Meyer is
a hop down the road.

In the US, most people living outside cities have access to multiple grocery
stores at "reasonable" distances. (Within cities, you often have a similar
choice in the "better" neighborhoods.) Furthermore, the money saved by
making a single trip with stops at multiple stores outweighs the cost of
gasoline several times over -- sometimes many times.

You read the ads, think about what you want to buy, and make a single trip
to pick it all up. It's that simple.

For the past 50 years, the US has been becoming one huge "suburb". You're
rarely more than a few miles from /anything/ you want to buy.

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Most people have /no idea whatever/ how to make intelligent purchases.

Your whole argument is based upon the ability to travel to different stores
and buy different but similar things.

For example, you mentioned buying day old bread. It's similar to fresh bread,
but not the same. Or that brand X meat is the same as brand Y and so on.

If gas is cheap and you have plenty of time you can do it, but if you are
busy, don't have a car, or can't afford the gasoline, you are stuck.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM
To help restaurants, as part of the "stimulus package", everyone must order
dessert. As part of the socialized health plan, you are forbidden to eat it.

 

[Brenda Ann]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ibugs4$46c$1@news.eternal-september.org...

This is not a problem -- not in the US, anyway.
We have a big connected grid.

Look it up. It's about 33% efficent, ie, 1/3 of the electricity
put into the grid comes out.

I'd like to see the numbers on that. That's a huge loss.

I could almost believe it, just thinking about hysteresis losses in
transformers, leakage in HT lines, etc.