Reasons to Cut Pollution and turn to Green Resources regardless of Global Warming

[Thiebear]

they are building wind turbines that work specifically for cities and the updraft of a building.

Just like others building double helix type wind turbines that need very little wind.

its growing...

[SloppyOneXXVI]

That's funny because I did a basic calculation on that site for Hagerstown, MD and it said that it would be a monthly amount of $57, who wouldn't want a $57 electric bill each month? And there was one African WP 3.6 (2.5kW) that pays itself off in 20 years, that's 10 years before most houses are paid off.

Here's what the website calculated when I used 8 national pike, hagerstown, md, 21740:

Simple Payback in years: 1142 years

Simple Lifetime Cost Savings: $0

That's with a house using 14,000 KwH per year (which is the average in the US) and buying the most expensive turbine. Yeah you save a couple bucks a month, but the cost to buy these machines far outweights the money you will save in the long term.

Not to mention Hagerstown has roughly 40,000 people and is a much more open air area. Baltimore has 650,000 people. The city I live in has 65,000 people. Rockville, which is right next to me, is roughly the same size. There are more people in suburban and urban areas where wind does not travel as well. Fixing the energy crisis for the Hagerstown's of the country won't do much. Come talk to me when you can fix the DC and NY energy usage.

The technology has to get better first.

[Larry]

This guy is wind/solar and is off the grid.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2006-04-12-off-the-grid_x.htm

I'm not certain, but I believe that's the guy I was referring to. (Although this particular article doesn't actually mention where he gets the energy to heat his house, heat water, or cooking.)

[Baculus]

But that said, my opinion (based, I'll freely admit, on nothing more than my never-wrong gut feeling) is that wind power will never be a viable primary source of energy. Mainly because I think of wind power kind of like "hydroelectric power, except it's impossible to build a dam, therefore it's impossible to force the wind to go through your turbine. The best you can do is the equivalent of putting a hydroelectric turbine in a river and harvesting power from whatever water doesn't chose to just go around your silly turbine.".

I agree a bit with your statement. The issue with wind and solar energy is that they are not "on demand" energy sources. We'd definitely need to upgrade our energy grid, such as the smart grid Obama has mentioned on a number of occasions.

I still believe the future lies in fusion energy or theoretical possibilities such as "negative" energy. In spite of the unpopularity with some environmentalists, I am even fine with fission-based nuclear energy, which is preferable to burning coal.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'm not certain, but I believe that's the guy I was referring to. (Although this particular article doesn't actually mention where he gets the energy to heat his house, heat water, or cooking.)

The only thing the article says is that he's completely off the grid, and that he uses solar and wind, so my guess is that he gets it from those two.

[Thiebear]

4. Southwest Windpower Whisper 500

small wind turbine, whisper, whisper 500The Whisper 500 can produce enough energy to power a small to moderately sized home. Formerly the Whisper 175, the Whisper 500 was completely redesigned in 2004 to work in harsh, high wind environments.

The Whisper 500 is a two bladed fiberglass reinforced blade and incorporates a patented “angle governor,” designed for quiet operations in high winds. Side-furling overspeed protection turns alternator and blades out of high winds without cutting power output.

Cost: $7,095

Rated Capacity: 3kw

Startup Windpeed: 7.5mph

Rotor: 15 feet (4.6 m)

Interconnection: Utility connected or battery charging

Voltage Output: 24, 32, 48 VDC or 240 VAC

Estimated Energy Production: 1500 KWh/month @12.5mph

and solar on a wooden shingled shed would probably take care of most peoples houses on a monthly basis.

[sacase]

Besides wind power being inconsistant. Two other issues

1) People like Kennedy don't want them blocking their views

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/05/07/kennedy_doesnt_play_by_the_rules/

2) even enviromentalists don't like them cause they kill birds.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-01-04-windmills-usat_x.htm

[AsburySkinsFan]

Exactly.

In some ways, global warming has become a red herring for anti-environmental legislation organizations and it has become a source of attack for the Wise Use movement.

Even before the furor over the global warming debate erupted, we still had battles of emissions control and toxic dumping. Many water sources in the U.S. are still considered to be undrinkable, and smog is still an issue in urban areas.

Do we really think this stuff is going to go away?

No its not going away and as long as people are allowing themselves to dismiss going green because someone said global warming isn't man's fault then they will only get worse.

But, let oil prices shoot through the roof during the winter months like they did during the summer and I guarantee you that there will be legions of new greenies looking at solar and wind resources for their homes, especially if those prices stay high. What's more and here's the real rub, if it takes as long as I think it'll take to shift off oil (100 years) then we'd better get started now due to the fact that the oil field in the ME are scheduled to run out in about that same amount of time, and unless we want to be embroiled in war upon war over that sweet crude then I highly suggest that we as a people start seriously looking at our alternatives and soon.

[SloppyOneXXVI]

4. Southwest Windpower Whisper 500

small wind turbine, whisper, whisper 500The Whisper 500 can produce enough energy to power a small to moderately sized home. Formerly the Whisper 175, the Whisper 500 was completely redesigned in 2004 to work in harsh, high wind environments.

The Whisper 500 is a two bladed fiberglass reinforced blade and incorporates a patented “angle governor,” designed for quiet operations in high winds. Side-furling overspeed protection turns alternator and blades out of high winds without cutting power output.

Cost: $7,095

Rated Capacity: 3kw

Startup Windpeed: 7.5mph

Rotor: 15 feet (4.6 m)

Interconnection: Utility connected or battery charging

Voltage Output: 24, 32, 48 VDC or 240 VAC

Estimated Energy Production: 1500 KWh/month @12.5mph

and solar on a wooden shingled shed would probably take care of most peoples houses on a monthly basis.

12.5 mph is a pipe dream! Look at this chart showing the average wind speed for cities in America per month... http://www.dynsystem.com/netstorm/docs/avgwind.html

Few cities ever break 10 mph (which is a 20% drop from 12.5) and most cities are around 6-8 mph. So let's say the average city is 7 mph. That's about 60% of the 12.5 mph that website is basing the power input on.

Not too bad... except the STARTUP windspeed is 7.5 mph!!!! That's higher than the average wind speed. So the turbine won't even be running most of the time... and even when it is, it won't be running anywhere near capactiy. Those numbers are based off of highest possible capacity, which isn't near realistic. Expect about 25-40% of any output a company tells you...

[AsburySkinsFan]

Besides wind power being inconsistent. Two other issues

1) People like Kennedy don't want them blocking their views

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/05/07/kennedy_doesnt_play_by_the_rules/

2) even enviromentalists don't like them cause they kill birds.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-01-04-windmills-usat_x.htm

Well that would be a fair argument if it were valid. Because so far no one has mentioned the big wind farms, but instead the smaller scale home sized VAWT's, that are bird safe.

As for the inconsistent argument, they store the extra power in batteries for times that the wind is not blowing, add to that the use of solar electricity and water heating, and all I'll say is .

[AsburySkinsFan]

12.5 mph is a pipe dream! Look at this chart showing the average wind speed for cities in America per month...

To be fair the one he listed was a pretty big VAWT, the smaller one's have a lot lower start up.

[sacase]

No its not going away and as long as people are allowing themselves to dismiss going green because someone said global warming isn't man's fault then they will only get worse.

But, let oil prices shoot through the roof during the winter months like they did during the summer and I guarantee you that there will be legions of new greenies looking at solar and wind resources for their homes, especially if those prices stay high. What's more and here's the real rub, if it takes as long as I think it'll take to shift off oil (100 years) then we'd better get started now due to the fact that the oil field in the ME are scheduled to run out in about that same amount of time, and unless we want to be embroiled in war upon war over that sweet crude then I highly suggest that we as a people start seriously looking at our alternatives and soon.

Alternative 1) Drill Baby, Drill!!!!

Alertnative 2) When green energy is cheaper than oil, the market will naturally shift to that resource. We don't need BS taxes artifically inflating Oil prices to make green energy compatative with oil.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Alternative 1) Drill Baby, Drill!!!!

And here I remember starting this thread on the premise that we CUT pollution. Go figure.

Alertnative 2) When green energy is cheaper than oil, the market will naturally shift to that resource. We don't need BS taxes artifically inflating Oil prices to make green energy compatative with oil.

The only problem is that you're assuming that we are playing on a level field, do you really think that oil companies are going to say, "Oh, oil is running out might as well go to something else." Or are they going to say, "Oh, oil is running out better raise the price and buy a couple politicians who will make sure that our place in the market is secure."

BTW, my picture is just as scary as yours.

[Larry]

Which is why most people who make the shift go wind/solar.

Actually, I'll also have to announce that my aforementioned unscientific gut is really skeptical about small, single-stage solar ever working, either.

To me, it seems massively obvious that an approach I saw in a Pop Sci, years ago, which involved a large field of mirrors (installed on mounts like those used for large satellite dishes) collect sunlight from acres of land, and direct all of it to a single, non-moving, focus, would be much more likely to become viable.

Again, my reasoning is based on using hydroelectric power as an analogy.

In theory, the amount of energy you can get from hydro is proportional to the flow rate (the gallons per minute passing through your dam) times the height differential (the difference in height between the water on the upstream and downstream sides of the dam).

Using that formula, a single dam 100 feet high will produce exactly the same amount of power as 1,200 dams, one inch high each.

In practice, however, it's not remotely close. The small dams lose so much power to various inefficiencies that they will produce zero power, each. A dam that isn't at least a few hundred feet high is pretty much useless for generating power.

To take that analogy back to talking about solar: Suppose you have 1,000 mirrors focusing sunlight. Your plan is to use the sunlight to warm a working fluid (water, freon, whatever), then feed this heated fluid through a turbine to convert it's energy to electricity

In theory, it could be pretty efficient. Converting sunlight to heat is 100% efficient. (Converting any energy to heat is really easy. The Second Law pretty much states that all energy will eventually become heat, no matter what you do, anyway.) And we've become really good at converting mechanical energy to electricity.

Now, in theory, it doesn't matter if your 1,000 mirrors are focusing their light onto 1,000 targets, or a single one. Each mirror will add X amount of energy to the target, so you can have one big increase in energy, or 1,000 little ones, which are 1/1000th as big, each.

But in practice, the system that uses 1,000 little collectors has to have some way to transport the fluid to all 1,000 collectors. Collector 1 may only raise the temperature of your fluid by 1 degree. Then you have to send that fluid to collector 2, to warm it another degree.

But while the fluid is going from collector 1 to collector 2, it's losing heat.

Bounce the light from all 1,000 collectors onto a single target, and now, instead of having 1,000 heaters that warm your fluid by 1 degree each, you've got a single collector that warms your fluid by 1,000 degrees, in a single step.

It really seems to me like that kind of approach is much more likely to become commercially viable, any time soon.

But again, that's just an opinion.

[sacase]

And here I remember starting this thread on the premise that we CUT pollution. Go figure.

The only problem is that you're assuming that we are playing on a level field, do you really think that oil companies are going to say, "Oh, oil is running out might as well go to something else." Or are they going to say, "Oh, oil is running out better raise the price and buy a couple politicians who will make sure that our place in the market is secure."

BTW, my picture is just as scary as yours.

Actually I think smart oil companies are going to become smart energy companies and they are already planning ahead for when oil is more expensive than green energy. I have no doubts oil companies are leading research into alternatives energy and fuels.

There are also corrupt politicians who are heavily invested into green energy <cough> Pelosi <cough>.

[alexey]

Alertnative 2) When green energy is cheaper than oil, the market will naturally shift to that resource. We don't need BS taxes artifically inflating Oil prices to make green energy compatative with oil.

Currently we are essentially subsidizing fossil fuels by making it free to emit CO2. The real cost of fossil fuels is not accounted for.

In other words, let's say pooping on the street is legal. Your argument would then go something like, why would I pay for a toilet when I can poop on the street for free? Well, maybe because it's not really free to poop on the street. Somebody has to pay for cleaning it up.

[Larry]

I agree a bit with your statement. The issue with wind and solar energy is that they are not "on demand" energy sources. We'd definitely need to upgrade our energy grid, such as the smart grid Obama has mentioned on a number of occasions.

I still believe the future lies in fusion energy or theoretical possibilities such as "negative" energy. In spite of the unpopularity with some environmentalists, I am even fine with fission-based nuclear energy, which is preferable to burning coal.

Actually, the reasoning I've heard for "why we need Obama's 'smart grid'" is a lot more basic.

Using the current (no pun intended) grid, it's impossible to "ship" large quantities of power across the country. Neighboring utilities can help each other out a bit, but the amount that they can actually transport from end to end is only a fraction of what the grid uses, itself. (Imagine a system of roads where every road in the county was big enough to handle the county's load, and a few percent extra. Now try to supply all of the needs of DC from Texas.)

And the best places for solar and wind power are in places where nobody lives. Places like Nevada and West Texas.

Even if a solar power station in Nevada could produce enough power to run DC, there's no way to get it there.

[Larry]

The only thing the article says is that he's completely off the grid, and that he uses solar and wind, so my guess is that he gets it from those two.

And when there isn't any wind, he uses his propane generator.

Now no, it doesn't say that he uses propane to heat his house.

But it does say that he can run his house for a week off of 24 car batteries.

How many houses you figure can heat the house for a week on 24 car batteries?

Let's just examine hot water. I think that the typical electric hot water heater pulls 30A at 220V. That's a load of 6,600 W. And it takes the water heater, what, 20 minutes to warm back up after somebody uses all the hot water?

I seem to remember that a good car battery is rated for "100 A hr". Meaning it can put out 1A (at 12 V) for 100 hours, or 100A for 1 hour, before being completely drained. That works out to being able to deliver 1,200W for an hour. Or 3,600W for 20 minutes.

And that admittedly really quick and dirty math says that recycling the hot water heater once will completely drain two car batteries, all by itself.

How many car batteries you figure it takes to heat a house in Vermont for a day?

----------

But in any case, the story I remember somebody posting here, a year or so ago, was a guy, who I thought was in Vermont or some place similar, mentioned low voltage lighting, car battery storage, rationing his kid's electricity usage, and propane.

What are the odds that the story I'm remembering isn't this same guy?

[Larry]

As for the inconsistent argument, they store the extra power in batteries for times that the wind is not blowing, add to that the use of solar electricity and water heating, and all I'll say is .

Problem with the batteries is that the batteries only charge when your turbine is producing more power than you're using.

For every minute you're running solely off battery, there has to be a minute where your turbine is at full power, and you are using zero energy. (Or two minutes where you're generating half capacity and using none. Or four minutes when you're generating half capacity, and using 1/4 capacity.)

(Which isn't necessarily all that hard to do. How much electricity are you using at 3:00 AM, if you're not using electricity for heat? It just has to be factored in.)

[Thiebear]

the new plastic rollout solar should helpout quite a bit as its not so clunky and should be half the price.

and yes..you probably should get an estimate of what you would gain lose on any installation...duh.

[sacase]

Currently we are essentially subsidizing fossil fuels by making it free to emit CO2. The real cost of fossil fuels is not accounted for.

In other words, let's say pooping on the street is legal. Your argument would then go something like, why would I pay for a toilet when I can poop on the street for free? Well, maybe because it's not really free to poop on the street. Somebody has to pay for cleaning it up.

Then by that standard we would be subsidising the green energy companies unless we start charging them for Wind, Sun or Water. Is that a road you really want to go down?

Additionally, you would need to tax the consumer as they are the ones using the cars which emits the CO2.

[alexey]

Then by that standard we would be subsidising the green energy companies unless we start charging them for Wind, Sun or Water. Is that a road you really want to go down?

I am not sure what you are asking here. Releasing CO2 into the atmosphere is currently free, but it has costly effects, so it really is not.

Additionally, you would need to tax the consumer as they are the ones using the cars which emits the CO2.

Yes, you can say that you would be taxing the consumer, directly or indirectly... or you can say that you are simply factoring in the real cost of fossil fuels. This name game is only important if you care what things are called, rather than what they are.

[sacase]

I am not sure what you are asking here. Releasing CO2 into the atmosphere is currently free, but it has costly effects, so it really is not.

Your really stretching here. Like I said are you going to start charging for wind, Sun and Water? The only way you can make your subsidy claim work is by making up an additional cost, which simply does not exist.

Additioanlly, think of all the lost revenue by the government. They make more than the oil companies do, just from the taxes already in place on oil companies.

[alexey]

Your really stretching here. Like I said are you going to start charging for wind, Sun and Water? The only way you can make your subsidy claim work is by making up an additional cost, which simply does not exist.

I'm not sure what is it that I'm stretching... Let me put it this way. There is a cost associated with modifying the chemical composition of our environment. This cost needs to be accounted for. Wind and Solar do not modify the chemical composition of our environment when generating power, while fossil fuels do.

I did not mention Water because there are hidden costs to hydroelectric power as well, but they are not as obvious as releasing gasses into the atmosphere.

[PeterMP]

I'm not sure what is it that I'm stretching... Let me put it this way. There is a cost associated with modifying the chemical composition of our environment. This cost needs to be accounted for. Wind and Solar do not modify the chemical composition of our environment when generating power, while fossil fuels do.

I did not mention Water because there are hidden costs to hydroelectric power as well, but they are not as obvious as releasing gasses into the atmosphere.

There are "known" "hidden" costs associated with all methods we currently use to produce energy, including solar and wind. In addition, there are likely "unknown" "hidden" costs in some cases.

I think a good analogy here is a person standing on ice that he knows is pretty thin.

You don't want to stand so that your weight is put in any given place. You want to distribute your weight. We have essentially been putting the vast majority of our weight on a single spot for 100+ years. You could argue that it was a pretty "strong" place because it has supported us (though not w/o issues), but now there are pretty major cracks showing.

I'd argue that you don't want to leave our spot to quickly for any single spot because we might jump to an even more unstable spot.

What we need to is completely alter the way we are positioned so that we can redistribute our weight over a much larger area, while exploring the ice to identify strong and weak spots.

Our situation is futher complicated because as we've been standing on the ice, we've been gathering weight so it would also be VERY beneficial to us, if we could lose some weight (conservation), while carrying out the exploration.