Eco - windmills ... (bit OT)

Whats that old saying.. Theres no such thing as a free lunch..I think this applies to enery too.. Theres no such thing as (poloution) free energy.

I don't know what the answer is to the energy problmes we face, but wind power isn't the answer. Solar isn't so promising either.

Mike

China seems to be making its own problems:

"Concern as China clamps down on rare earth exports"

The article is about a year old, but the situation hasn't changed much. Allegedly, it's because China wants to control the mining pollution:

In the US, the congress critters are worried and are pushing for a renewal of domestic production (which was curtailed due to environmental concerns).

Incidentally, the radioactivity is from the other minerals mixed in with the Neodymium, and not in anything used during processing.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com               jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com               AE6KS

the

an

brilliant

the

Once

are

in

other

rather

The central African tantalum mines pay for the local wars.

I've never understood why there is not a prop shaft the length of those towers and then any old (heavy) generator at ground/sea level.

The talk, next week, for the sci caf I run

is on nuclear fusion , with someone from the Culham labs, I wonder how eco-unfriendly that would be if it ever gets going - I doubt it would be "too cheap to meter"

I could point out that it's China's problem, not ours. Which happens to be true.

I find it hard to believe that "radioactivity [is] involved somewhere in the process" of extracting neodymium -- unless neodymium is commonly mixed with ores of radioactive material -- which it apparently isn't. According to Wikipedia...

"Neodymium is not found naturally in metallic form or unaccompanied by other lanthanides, and it is usually refined for general use. Although classed as a "rare earth" it is no more rare than cobalt, nickel or copper, and is widely distributed in the Earth's crust. The bulk of the world's neodymium is presently [sic -- currently] mined in China."

If it isn't particularly rare, then one might assume other countries will begin or increase their mining of it, now that China has put export controls on it.

Wind power has the potential (sorry) for relatively cheap electricity, using hardware that is easily replaced as it wears out.

A long-term solution to food and environmental problems would require a "population implosion" -- an across-the-board reduction in population to

1/10 or even 1/20 the current level.

"There's... antimony, arsenic, aluminum, selenium And hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen and rhenium And nickel, neodymium, neptunium, germanium And iron, americium, ruthenium, uranium..."

the

an

brilliant

the

Once

are

in

other

rather

"N_Cook" wrote in news:iigdoi$uum$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

Think about it for a while. Hints;a 160 ft long shaft,torquing in the wind,and needing bearing support. then there's the mass of the shaft that has to be started and stopped with shifts in wind velocity. Cost of the shaft,too. I'm sure there's more.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Well, I'm not sure that wind power actually has anything like the potential to be worth all of its downsides, if you look at the figures for what it's actually doing in terms of filling any 'holes' in the grid. The latest figures are for what was actually produced, against what could have potentially been produced at full capacity, during the last cold spell that we had here a few weeks ago, and it doesn't make very inspiring reading. There are two types of weather systems that we get here in the winter in the UK. The first is, as my dear old high school geography teacher used to tell us, "All the Ws", which is Warm Wet Westerly Winds in Winter. This is typified by rather dull overcast weather rolling in on fronts from low pressure systems that form out in the Atlantic. They tend to be fairly quick moving, and have warm and moist light winds. Not too bad for wind generation, but by the same token, because of the temperatures, not really demanding in terms of energy requirements on the generating authorities, because there is not a great need for people to heat their homes too much. Right now, for instance, it's the depths of the UK winter, its 5 o'clock in the afternoon and well past sunset, and its 50 deg F outside.

The other type of weather that we get involves huge blocking high pressure systems that sit over northern Europe, and prevent any weather at all from coming in. These systems are typified by clear blue skies and totally clear nights. Daytime temperatures are lucky to make it to 30 deg F, and night time temperatures plummet into the 20s or lower, with sharp frosts. Winds are light to zero. This is very bad for wind generation. The situation can last for several weeks at a time, as these high pressure weather systems are huge and static. This is exactly what we had here a couple of weeks back, and the energy demand for heating was huge compared to normal. Wind power contributed almost nothing to the demand, because there simply wasn't any wind. Realistically, what use is a generating technology which produces power when you don't need it, and next to none when you do ...

You also need to understand the commercial aspects of wind power here. I don't know what the situation is west-pond, but here, there are all manner of financial incentives for organisations to set up and run these windfarms so, far from the belief by the eco-warriors that they are making a difference by getting take-up on this technology, it's actually a cynical exercise in taking piles of money from the government, by companies that don't actually give a toss whether it's worth it in the long run, or not.

Arfa

Similar reports from Texas - supposedly the largest wind power state. Rolling blackouts during cold snaps due to lack of wind generation...

in 2008:

in 2011:

So the choice the warmests offer is freeze in the dark.

That is assuming that CO2 actually is the cause of the latest warming since the 1700s (really - it started back then with the end of the mini ice age) and that humans are contributing to this CO2 increase by more than a couple of percent.

Or be warm and well lit by fossil fuels/nuclear/Hydro...

If increasing CO2 actually is a problem - a premise of which I am skeptical - I know what my choice would be: outlaw air conditioning and keep folks warm in the winter.

John :-#(#

--
    (Please post followups or tech enquiries to the newsgroup)
  John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9
  Call (604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games)
                     www.flippers.com
       "Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

This is one of the confusing points. The "Little Ice Age" (which was not universal) ended roughly at the time industrialization began. Cause and effect are not clear. However...

I'll keep saying this until someone listens. It doesn't matter whether or not the rise in CO2 is the cause of warming. We need sources of renewable energy that are either carbon-neutral, or emit zero carbon. If we focus on this, the warming problem will probably take care of itself.

**That depends on where you live. Here in Australia, an area the size of Victoria (3% of our land area) could be dedicated to PV cells. This would be anough (at present consumption and cell efficiency) to supply the entire planet's electricity requirements. There are areas of Australia that receive a considerable amount of yearly Sunshine. Of course, this is a bit of a distraction, as there are other, far superior methods of achieving base-load power. Again, here in Australia, we have access to enough geo-thermal energy to satisfy the entire planet's demands (for base-load power) for the next several thousand years. Sadly, our coal reserves are so massive and so cheap to obtain, that none of the above is of any consequence.

Back to Arfa's point: China has recently announced that it is dramatically curtailing the export of rare Earth materials. It is (wisely) retaining the stuff for internal use only.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message news:iihhhk$47i$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org...

That point is not really in dispute for most serious-thinking people. The problem is that this whole thing has taken on an almost religious life of its own, and anyone not swept along with it all, is denounced as a 'denier' - the equivalent of a heretic in real terms. There is a well respected and long-running TV programme here called "Horizon". It examines all manner of scientific issues in readily understandable terms, and is highly watchable from an entertainment point of view, even though it is a properly 'serious' show. A couple of weeks back, the incoming president of the Royal Society (the oldest and most revered seat of science in the world) presented the programme, and it was entitled 'Science Under Threat' I think. He was basically looking into why the tide of public opinion seems to have started to turn against the scientists, particularly on the global warming issue, and more and more people feel that they are being lied to. This anti GW movement gained a lot of momentum with the very bad publicity that surrounded the 'Climategate' affair, where the head honcho at the the University of East Anglia Climate Research Faculty, which advises governments world wide on climate change, was found, through leaked emails, to have been apparently 'massaging' and even suppressing data, to fit the wanted conclusions about man being responsible for GW. The conclusion that the guy came to was that scientists were being too insular, and not talking to the general public, and explaining themselves enough. This, he decided, was making the public unjustly suspicious of everything that was being said, fuelled by revelations like Climategate.

But I think that he was missing the point completely. He failed to understand that it has become a religion, with its own mantras, and its high priests are in fact very vocal at every opportunity, appearing on TV, radio and in newspapers just about every day. They have this attitude of 'we're right so you must be wrong', which is forced down the public's throat continuously, through the media, and all this legislation which is depriving us of 'comfort' items like incandescent light bulbs, and stopping our waste bins from being emptied every week, and stopping the local tips from taking any rubbish that they don't consider to be recyclable and so on. I think what we are actually starting to see is a backlash from the public at having their lives interfered with continuously, and they see this as a result of the preachings of the scientists.

Alternative power is fine, as long as it is worth the effort and energy budget used to produce it. The figures for wind power - at least in this part of the world - don't bear out the claims which are made for it. Wind turbines take a lot of manufacturing, shipping, installing and maintenance, all of which uses very substantial amounts of energy, and the returns from them are very small at best. Make no mistake, the erection of windfarms is about corporate business, as is an awful lot of green technology. Problem is that it's gone so far now, that even if it was all proved to be wrong tomorrow, we wouldn't be able to stop without causing a world-wide financial meltdown in the multi-billion dollar industry sector that has grown up around this dubious 'science' ...

Arfa

Sure it does. No problem can be solved without first finding at least one culprit to blame. Once the causes/culprits/conspirators/etc are identified, we can then move forward towards a solution. Unfortunately, most of the energy "solutions" offered are variations on either austerity programs, genocide, redistribution of wealth, or indirect self-enrichment. All have some unintended consequences and inefficiencies, such as original comments on neodymium mining and productions. Other solutions seem to be from the same groups that profit from the energy shortages, which suggests a hidden agenda. With wind power, there's also the noise, the aesthetics, the copper consumption, interference to radio from reflections, hazards to air navigation, migratory bird kills, and the ocassional out of control turbine.

(etc.... note the "suggested" list on the right for more disasters).

Nobody has an easy answer to the energy problem that will scale well and satisfy everyone's requirements. That means that the status quo will remain until the day we run out of oil.

We've also been here before. During the 17th century, England had an energy crisis of sorts when it ran out of wood, which was needed for ship construction and heating. That's when the 14th century ban on coal burning was magically lifted and England switched to coal.

I suspect something similar will happen with nuclear power. When the demand appears, the "problems" with nuclear will magically disappear.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com               jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com               AE6KS

Fast fix... no tower:

(Sorry, I couldn't resist).

Going from a horizontal turbine to a vertical generator is a gearing problem. Vertical turbines are possible. A Slavonius rotor or Darrieus turbine might qualify as a vertical prop (turbine) shaft, but nobody has built one 300ft high.

This page gives a good comparison of the common types of wind turbines:

Note the graph labeled "Wind Turbine Peak Efficiency" which underscores the basic problem with vertical rotors. They're not very efficient when compared to air screws (propellers).

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com               jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com               AE6KS

"Arfa Daily" wrote in news:zW13p.71206$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe05.ams:

I'm not buying the idea that humans can have an effect on global climate. (aside from a major nuclear war...)

not compared to solar output changes,volcanoes,major forest fires,and other natural causes. Also,I doubt that "developing nations" are going to change their practices.

then I REALLY get creeped out when people start talking about lowering the world population. For that,They Go First;they can set us an example,show us how truly caring they are about it.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Jeff Liebermann wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

wind power itself is not very efficient.....and certainly not reliable. best left for special applications,just like solar.

for electric power,build nuclear plants. clean,reliable,constant output,and it can be done right now. of course,electric isn't going to substitute for petroleum,not for a long time.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Small changes over a long period of time can have a big effect.

Fact: There are too many people. If population continues to grow unchecked, "something" will eventually happen to reduce it -- global war, starvation, economic collapse, perhaps things we haven't anticipated. THE EARTH DOES NOT HAVE AN UNLIMITED CARRYING CAPACITY. We can choose to do something rational about it -- or ignore it.

One way to have fewer people is to give birth to fewer people. This is generally happening in developed countries -- which is fortunate, because people with high standards of living tend to use too much energy and consume too many natural resources.

Something needs to be done about developing countries. You've seen the ads asking you to send money to help starving children who have only feces-laden water to drink. I'm certain most of the agencies trying to help the poor are sincere and doing the best job they can.

These ads are about "death control" -- keeping people healthy and alive, when they otherwise might have died. But you never see anything about "birth control". If poor people want medical assistance, they should have to pay for it -- by practicing birth control. If they refuse to, then they don't get help -- and they and their children die. You can consciously practice birth control with contraception -- or you can let nature do it, with disease and death. Make your choice.

The thing that makes human beings distinct from other animals is that we can drastically manipulate our environment to provide enough nutrition to produce a seemingly unlimited number of additional people -- which is largely what we've done since the invention of agriculture and animal husbandry. * We KNOW we will eventually reach the point where there will be too many people to feed. At some point, human beings -- in all countries, at all economic levels -- need to be FORCED to have fewer children. Enough fewer, so that global population begins to decline.

You don't want me to take away people's freedom to destroy themselves? Fine. On a certain level, I really don't care. The world doesn't need "the damned human race".

• Aboriginal Americans are a good example of people who /did not/ live this way.

I hope that's a joke.

You expect "the market" -- which is driven more by profit than altruism -- to provide a useful solution?

Where do you come off claiming most of the solutions involve "austerity programs, genocide, [or] redistribution of wealth". (I'm not sure what you mean by "indirect self-enrichment". Dale Gribble selling carbon offsets?) How does the gradual replacement of carbon-producing energy sources with carbon-neutral or low-carbon sources induce "austerity" or "genocide"?

Which is what the oil companies want. Why should we give into them, when there /are/ solutions?

They apparently already have. See...

Of course, very little is being done about it.

high

radio

depriving

waste

taking

having

But what does that have to do with whether the scientists are right? Science is not "supposed" to be about what people -- especially the public -- thinks, or would like to think.

It's true that scientists are only slightly less irrational than your average idiot. That doesn't mean they're wrong, or that it's a bad idea to use less energy or recycle waste.

maintenance,

is

financial

Do you have any hard data on the payback time for wind power that account for "everything"?

Maybe, but the climate change scientists would have us believe that we are causing all this in but a few years ...

Well, I seem to recall that the Chinese have a birth restriction policy in place, and it has been a disaster in terms of unwanted and abandoned daughters, because the don't fulfill the cultural need for sons ...

Arfa

There has been a gradual warming since the Industrial Age. The apparently "sudden" change is supposedly due to a "tip over" effect.

It's certainly true that insistance on one child per family -- which, if nothing else, is a psychologically bad idea -- didn't have much effect on population growth.