quote Originally posted by JazzMan: I found a 1948 printing on Amazon for $20, and several newer versions including one co-authored by Gerald W. Koeppl in 1972. ... Which version would you suggest?

Power from the Wind has been reprinted several times, beginning in 1972, both in hardback and paperback editions. I would avoid the 1974 edition; the copy I once owned was poor quality and cheaply bound, and it fell apart in short order. I am unfamiliar with the Koeppi edition, so I would probably avoid it too until I had the opportunity to examine a copy first hand.

If I were you, I would probably see if I could find a copy through my local public library. Even if they don't have a copy on their shelves, they can probably get you a copy (at no cost) through inter-library loan. If you still want to buy a copy, I would recommend buying a copy of the 1948 edition if you can find one at a reasonable price. The original print quality is better than any of the reprints I've seen, all of which seem to have been printed from low-resolution photocopies of the original pages.

FWIW, I had an original 1948 edition that was destroyed in a fire many years ago. My current copy is a pristine 1948 edition, first printing, that I bought used ... deaccessioned from the library of NOAA's Environmental Research Laboratories in Boulder, CO.


Edit: I just did an on-line interlibrary loan (WorldCat) search, and it shows that 193 libraries worldwide indicate that copies of the 1948 edition are available in their collections ... including 5 in Texas: Dallas Public Library, SMU Library, Ross State University Library, Texas Tech Library, and University of Texas (Austin) Library.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 03-10-2011).]

There's wind mills everywhere in Tehachapi. Some people have them on their land with no outside help from electrical companies.

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: If you still want to buy a copy, I would recommend buying a copy of the 1948 edition if you can find one at a reasonable price.

I tend to want to keep books like this in my permanent library. I've got the one on Amazon on the way, $23.99 shipped, listed with solid binding and good condition aside from an inscription and previous owner's name written inside the cover. I'm looking forward to reading it when it gets here, it'll be going to the head of the line.

------------------
Bring back civility and decorum!

It's possible to understand someone's point of view without accepting it. It's possible to disagree with someone without being rude and nasty about it. Sure it's hard, but nothing worth doing is ever easy, is it?

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: I've got the one on Amazon on the way ...

I expect to see a book report (public or private) forthwith.

See this link for some fascinating photos of the fabrication shop with the 1.75 MW Smith-Putnam wind turbine under construction.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 03-10-2011).]

I'm not much of a writer, so expect the book report to run something like "It is about X by Y inches with Z number of pages, consisting mostly of text with some illustrations and photos."

Edit to add: Cool info at the link, thanks Marvin!

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 03-11-2011).]

Today's headline: Green Power Soaks Up Taxpayer Dollars

The cost of green: Huge eastern Oregon wind farm raises big questions about state, federal subsidies

quote Indeed, Shepherds Flat demonstrates how Oregon provides millions of dollars to projects that would probably go forward without state subsidies. It illustrates how Oregon taxpayers subsidize California's renewable energy demand. It shows how developers have used the program's loose administrative rules to qualify for multiple tax credits for the same project. And it reveals how a program that was originally intended to promote conservation and clean energy morphed into an extravagantly expensive green jobs program. Stacking federal, state and county subsidies is perfectly legal. But the result is that taxpayers who subsidize a project may bear a greater burden for development than the company that profits from it. For Shepherds Flat, for instance, federal, state and local subsidies total more than $1.2 billion, about 65 percent of its $1.9 billion cost, according to a White House memo.

This is the first of a three part series:

Day 1: The world’s largest wind farm gets $1.2 billion in subsidies and will generate 35 jobs.
Day 2: No one can say how many jobs Oregon’s energy tax credits have created.
Day 3: Bipartisan support makes rollbacks of the subsidies unlikely.

quote Originally posted by dsnover: Absolutely! 'Barely survived' is quite a bit of a stretch. It certainly wasn't Chernobyl! Modern reactors are considerably smaller, more efficient, and generate less waste.

I'm guessing with 6 reactors in Japan about to go Chernobyl, this might be a good time to re-evaluate?

[This message has been edited by carnut122 (edited 03-13-2011).]

I got the Putnam book in this morning, it is in spectacularly good condition for being 63 years old.

It is 6-5/16" x 9-1/4" x 7/8" thick, with approximately 224 pages.

Into the read stack at the top, so it's next up in the queue. Looks to be fairly dense, so it'll take a while.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 03-14-2011).]

The Great Texas Wind Hoax (Part 1& 2)
http://patriotupdate.com/ar...-vs-the-state-part-i
http://patriotupdate.com/ar...xas-wind-hoax-part-2

quote Part1 The eastern Texas Panhandle, a land of rolling sand hills, tree-lined creek beds and tall grass vistas, may seem a desolate place to outsiders. Still, it has its beauty, especially to the cattle ranchers and wheat farmers who work and live on it. But not for long. Much of this land–the fragile habitat of the Lesser Prairie Chicken and the Whooping Crane–is scheduled to become industrialized if theTexas Public Utility Commission (Texas PUC), the Department of Energy (DOE) and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) have their way. Incongruously, the demolition of this mostly native grassland is being proposed in the name of green energy. The Competitive Renewable Energy Zone (CREZ), a name not without irony, was initiated by $10 million from DOE. In December of 2009, plans were expanded when Secretary Chu joined Jon Wellinghoff of FERC in a Memorandum of Understanding to coordinate efforts to interconnect several transmission lines. The CREZ line, part of the larger Electrical Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) system, is to help supply the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex with wind-generated electricity from the northern Texas Panhandle. There are problems, however. Protests from disgruntled landowners have been met with staunch resistance from Cross Texas Transmission (CTT), the developer of the Gray-to-Tesla and Gray-to-White Deer lines. In an escalation of that resistance, landowners were sent an “Access Consent Form” the day before Thanksgiving insisting that their lands be made available for survey. With the long weekend, landowners had only two working days to find representation, prepare a response, and still meet CTT’s deadline. CTT, acting under the auspices of the Texas PUC, has been given the power of eminent domain. With that looming over their heads, most landowners signed but added wording insisting Cross Texas Transmission follow established environmental laws, the same wording and the same laws now required on state-owned lands. Cross Texas responded to their request by issuing restraining orders and suing for entry without restraint. The action was not surprising. Since having been awarded the contract to construct, operate, and maintain these lines in October of 2009, Cross Texas has consistently reminded landowners that they have no options and has refused to address any of the economic or environmental problems created by the transmission lines. Taxpayer Subsidies, Ratepayer Pain According to the Texas Public Policy Foundation, wind energy in Texas will have in excess of $28 billion in subsidies, federal and state, poured into its development by 2025. When tax breaks, market disruptions, increased production and ancillary costs are added in, the taxpayer’s bill could top $60 billion. In spite of the massive funds being thrown its way, wind-generated electricity remains far more expensive for consumers than that produced from coal, gas or from nuclear facilities. It’s also severely compromised by its intermittency (the wind does not always blow). As a result, continued expansion of wind fields could raise rates paid by consumers by as much as 50 percent, even with the massive federal and state subsidies. The impact to small businesses and to those on fixed incomes could be devastating. Moreover, many experts believe that, due to the intermittent flow and low energy flux, wind generated electricity can never be competitive. Energy Density: Nuclear vs. Wind Science and Technology writer Gregory Murphy compared the energy flux density of the Comanche Peak nuclear plant south of Dallas to a hypothetical wind installation. The nuclear plant has two units capable of generating 2,500 megawatts and sits on only 4,000 acres which includes a man-made cooling lake that is open to the public and is used for recreation. Taking into account that the average wind turbine has a capacity of only 25 percent of its nameplate rated output, it would take 6,668 1.5 megawatt wind turbines to equal the output of the Comanche Peak station. Spacing wind turbines at five per section of land, a rate somewhat higher than the density landowners were promised by wind farm developers, a wind installation equaling the output of the Comanche Peak plant would require well over 13,000 sections of land or 8.6 million acres. That is an area roughly 1/20th the size of Texas. All this land, plus the lands decimated by the transmission lines carrying electricity to major metropolitan areas, would have reduced productivity, severely increased erosion and drastically reduced property values—certainly no boon for landowners. “Wind works only 25 percent of the time,” said Jeff Haley, rancher and Commissioner in Gray County, Texas. “And the CREZ line alone will cost 4.9 billion dollars. That’s a projected cost in 2008 dollars. It will almost certainly be more, but whatever it turns out to be, it will have to be paid for.” “Don’t kid yourself,” said David Hall, another Gray County rancher. “The consumers will pay for much of this, and we’ll all pay for the rest with our tax dollars. It’s not just that I don’t want them on my land. It’s that this kind of government boondoggle is wrong. The politicians supporting these things don’t understand them. They’re being advised that this or that is the right thing to do, and they’re not informed enough to make the right decisions.” Soviet-Style Technocrats “We’re dealing with Soviet-style technocrats,” Haley added. The metaphor isn’t without basis. Cross Texas Transmission is a wholly owned subsidiary of J. L. Power Group, a Delaware shell corporation with no board of directors and only a few employees. SEC filings list Mikhail Segal, a one-time official in the Ministry of Energy in the former Soviet Union and Michael Liebellson as founders. From the outset, landowners say, Cross Texas Transmission has acted every bit the oligarch and used the PUC’s power of eminent domain as a weapon. “These technocrats understand how to maneuver through the technicalities of the law.” Haley said. “It’s their job. They do it every day. How can we run our businesses and spend the time this is requiring to stand up to this kind of abuse?” One of the maneuvers he is referring to is the Texas PUC hearings held last August. Three routes had been selected for the proposed Gray to Tesla line with one listed as the “preferred route.” Multiple landowners and attorneys were present to defend their properties from damage along this route. Without discussion, the Public Utilities Commission chose an alternate route automatically subjecting those properties not represented to eminent domain. The landowners on the route selected had received a notice that their lands could, at some point, be affected, but all assumed that only the preferred route would be considered at the hearing. None realized they would not have an opportunity to intervene specifically for their properties should the preferred route be rejected. Beyond Property Rights: Performance In addition to the issues of land spoilage and the usurpation of private property rights, the issue of viability is very much at the forefront. A number of wind power companies are currently being sued by utilities companies and municipalities for not being able to deliver the electricity they promised. In Texas, three wind farms owned by NextEra Energy Resources LLC agreed to sell specified amounts of power annually to Luminant Energy Company beginning in 2002. When they failed to deliver the contracted amount, Luminant sued for $29 million in liquidated damages and won. A similar case occurred years earlier in Washington state, and observers of the wind industry are predicting a deluge of such cases in the future. Not So Green After All The Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade Bill may be momentarily dead, but there are persistent rumors of its resurrection. Even without it, proposals are floating through the halls of Congress which would offer billions more to wind developers and demand that as much as 20% of our electricity be generated from renewable sources. While these proposals are being discussed, three wind farms are cluttering the landscape of Hawaii, monuments in rust to the government’s imposition of a technology that simply does not work. A similar situation exists in California. In the December 13th edition of The American Thinker, Andrew Walden discusses what was once the largest collection of wind farms in the world. “In the best wind spots on earth,” he writes, “14,000 wind turbines were simply abandoned. Spinning, post-industrial junk which generates nothing but bird kills.” If and when federal funds cease to be shoveled into the wind projects now underway in Texas, most industry observers believe they will also be abandoned leaving the once swaying prairie an industrial junkyard of concrete, steel and fiberglass. Meanwhile, the green jobs pledged by the Obama Administration seem to be suffering the same fate as the birds. Almost 12 percent of the President’s original $814 billion stimulus package, enacted early in 2009, went to renewable energy projects. The White House estimates that the stimulus created 190,700 green jobs. The Department of Energy, however, reports only 82,000 jobs actually resulted from the bill and as many as 80 percent of those went to firms in China, Spain and South Korea. Further, the National Center for Policy Analysis reports that, because of the expense, renewable energy is in reality costing more jobs than it is creating.

quote part 2 Department of Energy and other federal and state regulatory bureaucracies run by environmentalist technocrats are violating Texas Panhandle cattle ranchers’ and wheat farmers’ property rights, devastating the productivity and economic value of their lands, and destroying the mostly native grassland in the name of “green energy.” These bureaucratic technocrats, oblivious to the failures of wind-turbines in Hawaii and California, are using tax credits, government subsidies, and state mandates to provide corporate welfare to the subsidized pseudo-enterprises promoting land-grabbing, wind-generated power instead of the far more efficient, far less expensive nuclear power plants. The bureaucrats are using their knowledge of the technicalities of the law to use “eminent domain” to effectively steal farmers’ and ranchers’ land for wind-farms, transmission lines, and roads. The process threatens and promises to substantially raise energy/electricity costs and rates for consumers, and—of course—rake taxpayers over the coals. The Enviromental Problems While projects such as the CREZ line are legally obligated to do environmental impact studies, Cross Texas Transmission may have opted to instead pay mitigation to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. If so, these monies will likely be used to transfer more land from private ownership into the vast domain now ceded to the federal government. Private land owners generally see this as a system of payoffs that exempts favored companies or political backers from the requirements of the law. “While no one knows the exact amount, it is reported that Texas remains nearly 97 percent privately owned and that’s a fact the federal government would like to change,” Dan Byfield, CEO of American Stewards of Liberty stated. “When companies like Cross Texas come along, federal land agencies see opportunities to charge fees or collect mitigation that brings huge sums of money into their agency to either regulate private landowners or buy up privately held land.” Unlike Texas, the national statistics are grim. Federal ownership of land has now reached the 40 percent mark with the latest land grab device being conservation easements. Still, agencies like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service argue that government-owned property is entitled to greater protection under the law. That may, in fact, already be the case since private landowners can seldom afford the legal expenses required to see that existing laws are enforced. The demand under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is, quite simply, that an environmental impact study be completed before work begins on the CREZ line. For that to take place, however, some very expensive legal wrangling will be required since Cross Texas has vowed that the law does not apply to them. “If you or I were proposing such a project, you can rest assured we would have to fulfill the requirements of the law and do a rigorous EIS,” said Jeff Haley. “I see no reason Cross Texas shouldn’t have to live under the same laws as the rest of us.” While pro-wind energy groups maintain that less than one percent of land is removed from actual production by turbines and transmission lines, many experts argue otherwise. First, the towers create large dry spots at their base that, in a semi-arid environment like the Texas Panhandle, simply won’t support a vegetative cover. The resulting “blow spots” grow with each wind storm and can, in short order, consume many acres. Further, roads must be built to service turbines and transmission towers. In sandy areas like most of the Gray to Tesla line, the surfaces must be paved or coated to prevent blowing. These roads prevent normal moisture absorption and interfere with animal migration, and the damage to wildlife by the existence of tall structures is far greater than that from technologies dependent on fossil fuels. Tall grasses and wildlife are also damaged by the turbines’ prodigious oil leaks, plus, in an area already plagued by major grass fires often started by downed power lines, lines of the magnitude proposed are not welcome. Heavy equipment used to install and service these lines and turbines compacts the turf and churns the surface destroying vegetation. Then, during the frequent winter and spring winds, the barren spots grow larger. Once productive sandy loam becomes what Panhandle ranchers call “blow sand,” soil leached of organic material by the wind, unable to sustain a vegetative cover. Both the turbines and the lines interfere with bird migration as well. The tall structures inhibit the breeding of the Lesser Prairie Chicken, and their presence will put the fate of the Whooping Crane very much into question. Further fragmentation of the LPC nesting grounds will almost certainly put it on the Endangered Species list and subject land owners to close federal scrutiny creating even more unwanted intrusion. Richard Peet, Gray County Judge, wrote in a letter to Assistant Attorney General Moreno and Tom Clark of the Natural Resources Division on December 9, 2010, that prior to allowing Cross Texas Transmission to circumvent the law that requires an environmental impact study, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service agents themselves pointed out that the currently proposed positioning of the Gray to Tesla line would “most assuredly” put the LPC on the endangered species list. At the very least, it was expected that the Fish and Wildlife Service would step in and insist that the route be studied for impact to wildlife. But the Service said there was no federal action that triggered a proper Environmental Impact Statement and that no permit would be required of CTT. However, a field coordinator for the Service told one landowner, if a permit is required, more than likely they will just pay mitigation and all resistance would end. The Problems of Quasi-Capitalism “Wind power is an open trough of government subsidies, tax credits and state mandates. Taken together, it’s a massive corporate welfare effort that means big money for the wind power developers and big costs for the rest of us.” Loren Steffy, the Houston Chronicle. In a free market, goods and services are offered for gain. So long as it is mutually advantageous to buyer and seller, it works. When products fail to meet requirements, the buyer finds better, cheaper or more desirable products elsewhere. When the producer fails to make a profit, he generally seeks another market. Or another product. The role of government in such a system is limited. If the producer fails to deliver promised goods or delivers something other than what was promised, or if the buyer refuses to pay the agreed-upon price, the government steps in through the criminal courts system, demands remediation and applies appropriate penalties. But what happens when the government itself exerts influence in the decision-making process or even dictates the outcome of the transaction? In that case, competitively priced goods or services cease to be the primary concern of the producer. Courting government agencies and influencing laws becomes the chief goal. Government-backed or government-created corporations become an extension of political might, and a symbiotic relationship develops between lawmakers and corporations facilitated by laws that, in many instances, they helped write. Intermittent sources of power, especially those that require backup from coal or gas, cannot compete in the open marketplace. Equipping corporate welfare recipients with one of the most easily abused powers of the state in an attempt to force the populace to accept an unreliable source of energy at a tremendously inflated price is both unwise and dangerous. Such policies come at great cost, and landowners may only be the first to be asked to pay. “The government is using corporations as its arm. They’re not just destroying my land; they’re destroying my heritage,” said Mark Cadra, a Wheeler County rancher whose land lies along the route selected by the Texas PUC. “I was taught for as long as I can remember to be a good steward of the land. Now the government has given this company the right to take what they want and do whatever they want with it. Believe me, what they want will damage my land forever. It makes me feel helpless.”

Your money’s gone with the wind (and solar)
http://articles.ocregister....-warming-electricity

quote Renewable energy is all the rage. California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a law last week to encourage more of it. The law "encouraged" in the way government encourages everything: Do it or else. Rather than produce a mere 20 percent of California's energy from renewable sources such as wind and solar by the year 2020, state utilities now are ordered to generate a third of it that way. President Barack Obama trumpets similar lofty-sounding goals for the nation, although he's not having as much success, considering Congress isn't as rabidly left-leaning green as California's Legislature. When they use your tax money to underwrite their good intentions and to impose their will by force, isn't it a good thing? Aren't wind and solar energy low on pollutants and "renewable?" The sun always shines, and the wind always blows, don't they? Well, not always. More on that later. At this critical juncture, as global warming alarmism loses momentum after being exposed as hot air, in the political, not atmospheric, sense, and the green-renewable energy movement it spawned picks up speed, we bring you a not-quite comprehensive, but rather revealing look at what it all means. Call it, renewable energy by the numbers. 15-26 – The range of percentage increase that California consumers will pay for electricity by 2020, thanks to Gov. Brown. 34, 44, 74 – These are the percentage increases consumers will pay for electricity from, respectively, Southern California Edison, PG&E and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, after adding the previous additional costs to meet the old 20-percent renewable mandate. $500 billion – This, according to the World Economic Forum, is the amount that must be spent per year to prevent the worst effects of global warming, requiring a doubling of annual investments in renewable energy. Considering that temperatures haven't increased by a statistically significant amount since the late 1990s, we shudder to think how much higher this number would be if things really heated up. $5.2 trillion – The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis says a federal renewable energy standard, such as Washington proposes, would reduce national income by $5.2 trillion from 2012-35. Californians: Get out your calculators to figure what percentage of that is your lost income so you can calculate how much you'll have left to pay your extra 34 percent, 44 percent or 74 percent in electric bills. $78 – This paltry amount is the projected price by the year 2016 for a megawatt hour of electricity generated from coal, one of those dreaded fossil fuels. Compare that with these numbers for generating the same amount of power from: onshore windmills, $149; offshore windmills, $191; thermal solar sources, $256; and photo-voltaic solar, $396. Suddenly, $78 looks even more paltry. 40 percent – In states with renewable electricity mandates – do it or else – electricity prices are nearly 40 percent higher than states without, says the Heartland Institute. In addition, the states also haven't – and probably can't – meet their mandated production levels. 3 percent – China, which is making stacks of money manufacturing and selling wind turbines to countries like the U.S., mandates that a puny 3 percent of its own electricity must be generated by renewable sources by 2020, compared with California's new 33 percent requirement. What do they know that Jerry Brown doesn't? 100 percent – If solar panels were 100 percent efficient, which is impossible, in order to provide all U.S. electricity needs, panels would have to be spread over an expanse of land the size of Connecticut, says Howard C. Hayden in his book, "A Primer on Renewable Energy." Needless to say, this isn't going to happen anytime soon, or for that matter, anytime ever. Nearly 100 – Government subsidies for solar power are nearly 100 times greater than subsidies for natural gas and petroleum. Subsidies and support per unit of production, according to the Energy Information Administration, were 25 cents for natural gas compared to $24.34 for solar in 2008. How about wind, you say? That's $23.37 per unit. Without massive subsidies from your taxes, wind and solar power generation simply wouldn't happen. 3.7 – Great Britain has gone down this renewable road already. How did that work out? For every green job "created in the renewable-energy sector (mainly solar and wind), another 3.7 jobs are being lost in the real economy, says the independent study by Verso Economics," James Delingpole wrote in the UK Telegraph. 21 percent – Even if they require subsidies (and they do), and destroy rather than create jobs (and they do), aren't renewable energy sources at least reliable? No, they aren't. "Britain's wind farms produce far less electricity than their supporters claim and cannot be relied upon to keep the lights on," the UK Mail Online reports from a study by the John Muir Trust. Over a two-year period, windmills operated at only 21 percent of full capacity, generating only "enough power for fewer than 7,000 households to boil their kettles," the paper reported. 2 percent – In light of the previous number, it's probably a good thing the U.S. got only 2 percent of its electricity in 2009 from wind. But it's probably not a good thing that the government wants to increase that level to 20 percent. As the Brits discovered, the wind doesn't always blow. Twice – Concerning wind-generated energy, we can learn from Great Britain. "It costs nearly twice as much to generate electricity from an offshore wind farm as it does from a conventional power station," the UK Mail Online reports, citing a government-funded think tank study. Worse yet, "Instead of costs falling as predicted, in the past five years the cost of buying and installing turbines and towers at sea has gone up 51 percent." 24/7 – "The days of permanently available electricity may be coming to an end," conceded Steve Holliday, chief executive of Great Britain's power network, the National Grid. Pointing to an era of increased wind turbine reliance, he said people will have to "change their behavior." That sounds eerily like President Obama, who told an audience that rising gasoline prices may mean they may have to trade in their cars. It's more about change, it seems, than 24/7. 5 times – Bird lovers should lament that their winged friends are five times more likely to die when near wind turbines, according to a specialist with the California Energy Commission. The spinning blades shred birds by the thousands. 1/3 – Most renewable energy discussion concerns replacing what already is produced by plentiful, much less expensive and available fossil fuel sources. There's not much discussion of these less-efficient, much more costly and more difficult to corral renewable energy sources in a future world that demands much more energy. The Energy Information Administration estimates the U.S. will need about one-third more energy in 2020 than it uses today. Not only will renewables be more costly and less reliable, they will need to produce much more. 3.5 percent – At least we can move our cars off the addiction to imported oil, can't we? "If we devoted all corn grown in the United States to sustainable ethanol production, we could displace only about 3.5 percent of current gasoline consumption," James Eaves and Stephen Eaves wrote in Regulation magazine a few years ago. Meanwhile, nations with starving populations must be aghast as the U.S. effectively pours three or four of every 10 bushels of corn into our gas tanks. 103, zero and 7 – For those who prefer to buy American, consider that the Obama administration has not approved 103 pending oil drilling permits, not approved a single new exploratory drilling plan in the Gulf of Mexico since "lifting" the president's deepwater drilling moratorium in October 2010 and placed a seven-year ban on drilling in the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts and Eastern Gulf. 1 percent – That is the amount of the U.S. oil demand used to generate electricity, and it generates only about 1 percent of the electricity we use. Consequently, reducing reliance on imported oil would have next-to-no effect on keeping the lights on. But wouldn't reducing imported oil lower gasoline prices? "Oil is a fungible commodity with a global price," James Woolsey and Anne Korin wrote in the Wall Street Journal. In 2008, oil prices skyrocketed in the United Kingdom – even though it produces virtually all its own oil. When non-OPEC nations drill more, OPEC drills less, and prices are maintained. 6 cents – That's the third-quarter earnings on every dollar for the alleged greedy and exploitive oil and natural gas industries. The beverage and tobacco industries averaged 20 cents per dollar; computer and peripheral equipment makers, 15.6 cents. What does all this portend? Maybe Shell Oil knows. In 2008 Shell pulled out of the consortium building the world's biggest offshore wind farm, and the UK Guardian reported this month that "Shell has pulled out of renewables." It was the contrived emergency of impending global warming doom that gave the renewable energy movement its impetus. Where does it go now? A European Union plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions 60 percent requires, among other sacrifices, banning automobiles in cities. Ready for a renewable-energy green future? Pull out your wallet, put away your car keys, and prepare to grope in the dark.

I see things a little different. I think we need to, well, maybe not lose the grid entirely, but we certainly need to lessen reliance on it. I think homeowners, wherever possible should be generating at least a portion of their own power. If designed right, a home could get all its power from renewable sources:



This home (called an Earthship, see my sig for more info) is designed down, with living off-grid in mind. It uses the earth's stable temperature to stay cool in the summer and warm in the winter, so no power is needed for A/C or heat. That alone would take a huge burden off of the grid but it doesn't stop there. Its appliances are all super-efficient models and lighting is carefully planned to create more lighted space with less bulbs needed. It uses a solar water heater with a propane on-demand heater for backup. I have personally toured one of these homes. It was so efficient that a couple of solar panels and one small wind turbine (connected to a battery bank for lulls in the sun/wind) can supply all the power it needs, completely independent of the grid.

Now, I'm not saying that everyone needs to move out of their existing homes and buy Earthships, but I am saying that we could shift an enormous amount of energy production away from fossil fuels by simply adding solar panels to as many homes as possible (and mini wind turbines to rural homes) and put solar panels on as many sky scrapers as possible in the cities.

------------------
Read my Earthship thread in Totally O/T
si vis pacem, para bellum

"The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams

What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is so hard to understand?!

I think of it being a case of every megawatt generated from wind makes our fossil fuels last that much longer.

Didn't ready any of Avengador's drive-by copy and paste, it's pretty irrelevant and I suspect (given his posting history) that the cited sources are inaccurate and not meaningful.

quote Originally posted by OKflyboy:

That looks interesting but how much of it is just like all the other "houses of tomorrow" that we've seen? I guess we'll see some of these features but not most in new construction.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: I think of it being a case of every megawatt generated from wind makes our fossil fuels last that much longer. Didn't ready any of Avengador's drive-by copy and paste, it's pretty irrelevant and I suspect (given his posting history) that the cited sources are inaccurate and not meaningful.

Considering the projected increases in world population, anything we do to conserve is hopeless.

Turns out these wind turbines are killing bats which is costing the US billions per year. Bats eat a lot of pests that kill crops. Less bats means more pesticides.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp...nimal_20110331184941

They don't even have to actually strike the bats to kill them:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14593

Sadly, there's a possibility this may be somewhat true. Research is still in the hypothetical stage, hopefully they'll get the funding necessary to find out what's really going on. http://www.fort.usgs.gov/batswindmills/

As an aside, it's interesting that bat mortality comes up here WRT wind power when it's been completely ignored WRT environment/habitat destruction. The biggest killer of bats is a fungus that causes "white nose syndrome", killing millions of bats and decimating populations in colonies. Mortality rate is near 100%. Of all the things killing bats today, windmills are likely at the very bottom of the list and eliminating them won't make a significant change in bat populations in this country. More info on bats: http://www.batcon.org/

One other thought: I wonder if the entire area is being searched for dead bats, or just the areas around windmills? WNS could be killing large numbers of bats and only the ones around windmills are being found because that's the only place people are looking.

BTW, as a former caver I like bats quite a bit.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: That looks interesting but how much of it is just like all the other "houses of tomorrow" that we've seen? I guess we'll see some of these features but not most in new construction.

Houses of Tomorrow? Earthships have been around for 30 years, and they are getting more refined everyday.

The concept is not new and not exclusive to Earthships, however.

Thermal Mass cooling basically means sinking the house into the ground a few feet, then berming on three sides - thereby tapping into the Earth's stable mass (which stays about 60 degrees F year round in most climates). Thereby eliminating the need for expensive AC.

Passive solar heating means orienting the length of the house to the South, and putting a lot of windows there to let light in in the winter, combined with mass inside the home (Thick massive walls, barrels of water, or tile floors) that collects the heat during the day then release it back at night. Thereby eliminating the need for expensive heating sources.

Carefully designed eaves and awnings that allow light to enter deep into the home during the winter and block light from entering directly into the home in the summer (along with thermal window shades) help combine the two methods of construction into one cohesive heating/cooling strategy.



Super-efficient appliances like DC refrigerators and DC lighting allow power to be used directly from DC sources (like wind turbines or solar panels) without the parasitic losses associated with DC-AC conversion.

Put them all together and you have a super-efficient home that can easily sustain itself without need of outside utility.

There's a lot more to Earthships, including being built with recycled materials, however that would take us off topic for this thread. Please read the link in my thread if you are at all interested in learning more.

------------------
Read my Earthship thread in Totally O/T
si vis pacem, para bellum

"The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams

What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is so hard to understand?!

[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 04-18-2011).]

quote Originally posted by OKflyboy: I see things a little different. I think we need to, well, maybe not lose the grid entirely, but we certainly need to lessen reliance on it. I think homeowners, wherever possible should be generating at least a portion of their own power. If designed right, a home could get all its power from renewable sources: This home (called an Earthship, see my sig for more info) is designed down, with living off-grid in mind. It uses the earth's stable temperature to stay cool in the summer and warm in the winter, so no power is needed for A/C or heat. That alone would take a huge burden off of the grid but it doesn't stop there. Its appliances are all super-efficient models and lighting is carefully planned to create more lighted space with less bulbs needed. It uses a solar water heater with a propane on-demand heater for backup. I have personally toured one of these homes. It was so efficient that a couple of solar panels and one small wind turbine (connected to a battery bank for lulls in the sun/wind) can supply all the power it needs, completely independent of the grid. Now, I'm not saying that everyone needs to move out of their existing homes and buy Earthships, but I am saying that we could shift an enormous amount of energy production away from fossil fuels by simply adding solar panels to as many homes as possible (and mini wind turbines to rural homes) and put solar panels on as many sky scrapers as possible in the cities.

Passive Houses Use 90% Less Energy —Really?



Yes, really. You think the oil, coal, natural gas and HVAC companies want you to know about this. NOT. The Passive House movement is in its infancy in the US but it’s already a young adult in Europe. It’s called “passive” because heating or cooling these homes relies completely on natural resources. In other words there are no active systems involved in the 90% reduction in energy use! How is this possible I’m sure you want to know. Why didn’t I know about this might be another question.

A passive house uses orientation, super insulation, advanced window technology, air tightness, and shading to achieve standards that are set by the Passiv Haus Institute. These standards eliminate the need for a conventional HVAC system or for solar panels and geothermal systems. Although some homes have an option for solar systems. An energy recovery ventilation system provides a constant, balanced fresh air supply, a uniquely terrific indoor air quality, AND reduces energy use and carbon emissions, according to the Passive House Institute US (PHIUS)

Do passive houses cost more to build? Yep. David Peabody, a Washington metro area architect and passionate promoter of sustainable architecture and passive houses is building a passive house in Bethesda, Maryland. He found that the increased cost for the home he’s building is about 8%. For a 90% reduction in monthly energy bills I’d say it’s worth it. A certified passive house uses less than 1.4 kWh per square foot in heating and cooling energy and uses less than 11kWh per square foot for all energy! By the way, existing homes can be retrofitted to meet many passive home standards.

Barbara Landau and her family are building a second home in Vermont. A Passive House–in Vermont–with no furnace. When several insurance companies asked what kind of heating system the house would have and were told NONE, they declined to insure the house, thinking the pipes would freeze. They won’t. This excellent NY Times article chronicles their story.

The passive house movement was started when conversations between two German professors at the Institute of Housing and the Environment led to the first passive houses being built in Germany in 1990. To date it is estimated that 15 to 20 thousand passive buildings have been built worldwide, mostly in Germany and Scandinavian countries. The US numbers are far, far fewer. Remember, the movement here is still a nursing baby, but one that is being nurtured by it’s German parent.



This map represents the Passive projects currently underway in the United States today. The squares have been certified, the circles pre-certified and the triangles are in the planning stages. Green represents single family homes, red education, blue multi-family and gold are retrofits.

Buildings use more than 40 percent of all the energy consumed in the United States. If builders were to embrace the passive building concept, both the cost of building and the use of nonrenewable energy sources would decline.

http://ecogayle.wordpress.c...stem%E2%80%94really/

[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 05-09-2011).]

I know of a few passive houses in KS and AR. Most are older (20 years or so). IIRC this is our 11th or 12th house in the last 30 years. None have been passive but, given the opportunity to build another, I'll definately invest as much of that technology as I can afford. Solar and wind power are in the human race's future.

------------------
Ron

What is the cost differential for a home of this type as compared to a more standard house design?

Nelson

quote Originally posted by OKflyboy: Houses of Tomorrow? Earthships have been around for 30 years, and they are getting more refined everyday. The concept is not new and not exclusive to Earthships, however. Thermal Mass cooling basically means sinking the house into the ground a few feet, then berming on three sides - thereby tapping into the Earth's stable mass (which stays about 60 degrees F year round in most climates). Thereby eliminating the need for expensive AC. Passive solar heating means orienting the length of the house to the South, and putting a lot of windows there to let light in in the winter, combined with mass inside the home (Thick massive walls, barrels of water, or tile floors) that collects the heat during the day then release it back at night. Thereby eliminating the need for expensive heating sources. Carefully designed eaves and awnings that allow light to enter deep into the home during the winter and block light from entering directly into the home in the summer (along with thermal window shades) help combine the two methods of construction into one cohesive heating/cooling strategy. Super-efficient appliances like DC refrigerators and DC lighting allow power to be used directly from DC sources (like wind turbines or solar panels) without the parasitic losses associated with DC-AC conversion. Put them all together and you have a super-efficient home that can easily sustain itself without need of outside utility. There's a lot more to Earthships, including being built with recycled materials, however that would take us off topic for this thread. Please read the link in my thread if you are at all interested in learning more.

quote Originally posted by hnthomps: What is the cost differential for a home of this type as compared to a more standard house design?

The article said about 8%.

Most passive homes will be further north for the most part. This is because the biggest problem is rejecting heat, and that's easier in cooler climates than in the south. However, the energy cost savings will still apply across the board.

quote Didn't ready any of Avengador's drive-by copy and paste, it's pretty irrelevant and I suspect (given his posting history) that the cited sources are inaccurate and not meaningful.

How do you know it's irrelevant if you don't read it, isn't that the definition of ignorance? People who keep their heads buried in the sand will never learn anything.
There isn't one single magic bullet solution to our energy needs. The solution will require several methods and not all are applicable to everywhere. You couldn't build an Earth ship in most of Florida because of the water table being so close to the surface. I'm sure that would have an effect on how good the design would work and it might create complications. Wind power isn't 100% reliable because the wind doesn't blow constantly in most places. Solar panel technology isn't advanced enough to provide all the power we would need and it's expensive to buy. Wave and tide power generation only works if you are on the coast and would be used for mostly local consumption. We can't dam every river neither, unless we want to kiss the fish in them goodbye. There are other power generation methods I haven't even mentioned but they too have their problems with how they are made and the logistics of using them.
My grandparents truly lived of the grid. They had no electricity, running water or even indoor plumbing for the longest time. They managed to live this way because they had their own farm on a couple of hundred acres of land. They grew crops and raised pigs, chickens, and cows for their own food and to sell for income, They used wood and coal for heating, and had a nearby creek to get their water from. They also had an outhouse which was relocated from time to time as needed. The walls of their home were insulated with old newspaper and in the Summer they left the windows open to cool the house down.
Today they wouldn't be able to live that way because of health codes, fire codes and pollution in the water, not to mention all the farming regulations that have been implemented since then. My uncle has the property now and had a modern home built on it. It has town sewer and water, electricity, gas heat, central air, Cable TV and even internet access. The old farm house was torn down in the mid 70s after my uncle was given the property. He doesn't do much farming now since he retired a few years ago. Most of the land has gone back to nature now.
We live in different times and situations. Now we have people (NIMBYs) who will fight you tooth and nail if you want to implement some of these things to your home or property. We also have town ordinances and permits to deal with now. Things certainly are more complicated now than what they used to be.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: How do you know it's irrelevant if you don't read it, isn't that the definition of ignorance? People who keep their heads buried in the sand will never learn anything.

I didn't read it because everytime I tried to read what you copy and paste in the past it's always been the same regurgitated pap from partisan sources. I now know that I don't have to read what you copy and paste because I already know what it says.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: There isn't one single magic bullet solution to our energy needs.

This much we agree on.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: My grandparents truly lived of the grid. They had no electricity, running water or even indoor plumbing for the longest time. They managed to live this way because they had their own farm on a couple of hundred acres of land. They grew crops and raised pigs, chickens, and cows for their own food and to sell for income, They used wood and coal for heating, and had a nearby creek to get their water from. They also had an outhouse which was relocated from time to time as needed. The walls of their home were insulated with old newspaper and in the Summer they left the windows open to cool the house down. Today they wouldn't be able to live that way because of health codes, fire codes and pollution in the water, not to mention all the farming regulations that have been implemented since then. ... We also have town ordinances and permits to deal with now. Things certainly are more complicated now than what they used to be.

That much is certain. A lot of codes were written to prevent problems that had occurred before, such as flammability of newspaper insulation and groundwater pollution from some husbandry practices. Overall sanitation-related diseases are almost nonexistent, a good thing in my book, and it's also rare to hear about fire-related fatalities in modern homes. On balance I'm happy with most of the codes and regulations out there now WRT family dwellings. We do live in different times, very much different. The fact you're reading this is proof of that.

More "unintended consequences" of subsidies:

The Bonneville Power Administration will rein in the wind, and is likely to reap the legal whirlwind.

quote In a decision that speaks to the region's ability -- or inability -- to effectively manage all the simultaneous wind and water energy being generated in the Columbia Gorge, the Bonneville Power Administration said Friday it will pull the plug on wind farms at times when excess generation threatens to swamp the system's ability to handle it. That could come early next week, as spring runoff increases hydroelectric generation, the agency said. BPA's decision is almost certain to trigger litigation from wind farm operators, including independent producers and utilities -- whose projects won't generate expected financial returns. They depend on turbines running flat out when the wind blows to generate not only power, but the renewable energy and tax credits that make up a sizeable slice of their revenue stream.

Hopefully this is limited to a singular situation and is wholely due to engineering issues of handling so much energy being inserted into the grid at one time versus economic reasons of free energy taking the place of profitable energy by the power company.

------------------
Ron

quote Originally posted by hnthomps: What is the cost differential for a home of this type as compared to a more standard house design? Nelson

The 8% mentioned above also takes into consideration building with new materials. Recycling, building with old tires, or other "filler" would save on building costs. Doing major parts yourself would also save substantially.

Brad

Ron,

I know of a guy down in Florida that might be able and available to help you with this project.

quote Originally posted by kyunderdawg: Ron, I know of a guy down in Florida that might be able and available to help you with this project.

Paul,
I'm not really sure what project you're talking about. If you're still in trouble with your wife, I really don't have room in the back yard for that guest house and if you're thinking you can move into my Man Cave, you really need to think again. Until those projects are done, ain't no one getting in there but me. I've got a wife also you know. I also need a place to go during times of "turmoil".

------------------
Ron

quote Originally posted by Jazzman I now know that I don't have to read what you copy and paste because I already know what it says.

That is pretty presumptuous of you. If you did read the stuff I copy and paste you would see that all of it isn't partisan, even if it was, is that a good reason to stay uninformed? I usually read something before I make up my mind on it. If you want to talk about being partisan, lets' talk about the healthcare bill example. It was passed without them even taking the time to read it.
The bottom line is that you don't any grounds to critique anything I post unless you actually read it. If you don't read them, you are only making an opinion that has no meaning, because it isn't based on anything you actually read. In other words your opinion will be worthless because it is baseless.

quote Originally posted by blackrams: Paul, I'm not really sure what project you're talking about.

The suggestion was only if you were going to build something to harness some wind power.

quote Originally posted by blackrams: If you're still in trouble with your wife, I really don't have room in the back yard for that guest house and if you're thinking you can move into my Man Cave, you really need to think again. Until those projects are done, ain't no one getting in there but me. I've got a wife also you know. I also need a place to go during times of "turmoil".

I was never in trouble with the wife, but even if I was, you couldn't even spare a spot in the rafters? Oh, come on!

quote Originally posted by kyunderdawg: I was never in trouble with the wife, but even if I was, you couldn't even spare a spot in the rafters? Oh, come on!

Where do you think I hide? BTW, Mike's pralines are wonderful. Melts in yer mouth. Yum Yum.
OK, I'll make room up in the rafters for ya but, just remember, Jake is up there with ya, he snores and slobbers.

Ron

quote Originally posted by blackrams: BTW, Mike's pralines are wonderful. Melts in yer mouth. Yum Yum. Ron

Mike and I need to have a talk.

[This message has been edited by kyunderdawg (edited 05-15-2011).]

Since you can run just about anything off 12 volts (either products or inverter), Ive thought about making a big blade for my roof running like 1 or 2 big Caddy alternators and a smaller batch of batteries stored in the attic. I made it thru a week power outage using a few high capacity RV batteries. I used a small gas generator to recharge them a few hours each day. Ran my tv, dvd player, furnace, and some 12v lites. Didnt need the fridge because it was below freezing outside, so just boxed food up by the door.

Modern full sine-wave inverters are approaching 99% efficiency, so they're a good choice to use if you want to run AC items off of batteries charged w/ automotive alternator-based wind generation systems. The operating cost of wind power approaches zero since there's no expensive fuel to consume nor waste/exhaust products to remediate/dispose of.

Wind power shut down to make way for hydro

quote As predicted, Bonneville Power Administration shut off the region’s wind turbines last night to make room on the grid for all the hydroelectricity coming from Columbia River dams. The Columbia is seeing the highest river flows since 1997, and it’s putting BPA in a bind. All that water has to go somewhere, and as reservoirs fill up, more water flows through the eight dams on the Columbia and generates more hydroelectricity than normal.

The problem is apparently at low demand time as shown by this BPA chart:

[This message has been edited by spark1 (edited 05-19-2011).]

How odd. Hydroelectric generators are throttleable, i.e. the output is controllable independent of the flow. It has to be in order to efficiently meet demand load variations. Me thinks something fishy is going on...

Edit to add:

According to the basic supply/demand math I learned in business 101, excess supply should lead to lower prices. I wonder if that's truly the case? Are customers seeing a drop in prices?

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 05-19-2011).]

If they really believe in climate change.. the ocean currents will change as will wind currents right? The fans may no longer even be placed where they need to be.

Just popped into my head.

The only place that wind energy is viable is an area with consistent wind.

Even the world's best wind energy farms can only muster 27% efficiency.

Essentially every watt of power from wind is subsidized by government. It is not economically viable except where there are offshore consistent wind patterns. People don't seem to get the fact that a wind turbine needs 25 mph winds just to turn. Most of the time we do not have 25 mph winds.

In Ontario, the government has been spending big on wind and solar and the tax payers are paying the price. We have 200 years worth of coal sitting in the ground and they won't approve scrubbers to clean the discharge but instead are closing the coal plants. Pretty errant, considering CO2 emissions being the cause of weather change is TOTALLY BOGUS.

As for self reliant houses, you can get close, but only at great cost, but there is no free ride in Canada. The sun will not heat any house in the face of -30 degree temperatures outside.

Moreover, the cost of fitting a house in the attempt to achieve "off the grid" heating/cooling is astronomical. Sure it is less than it was 10 years ago, but it isn't even close to affordable for the average family.

Don't get me wrong, I have a high efficiency furnace, argon filled windows, and lots of insulation, but, my energy bills are just as big as they were 20 years ago, in fact. WAY BIGGER due to government experimentation in Solar and Wind.

If you live on the west coast or the east coast, there is an arguement for wind energy, but, inland there isn't.

I just hope the Global Warming alarmists haven't bankrupted us before it is finished.

Arn

quote Originally posted by 2.5: If they really believe in climate change.. the ocean currents will change as will wind currents right? The fans may no longer even be placed where they need to be. Just popped into my head.

Good point, on the other side of the coin are ignorant articles like this

quote http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-01/wind-turbines-leave-clouds-and-energy-inefficiency-their-wake Turbine Contrails: Clouds form in the wake of the front row of wind turbines at the Horns Rev offshore wind farm near Denmark. Clouds stream in the wake of wind turbines arrayed at the Horns Rev offshore wind farm in this stunning photo. But David MacKay, a physicist at the University of Cambridge in the UK, sees the image as illustrating the common problem of back-row wind turbines losing power relative to the front row. Downstream wind turbines may lose 20 percent or even 30 percent of their power compared to their fellows in front, according to a study on wake effects at Horns Rev that MacKay highlights on his blog. The paper also emphasizes that different wind directions make it practically impossible to gauge an overall "steady state" for large wind farms, unless researchers can sample wind speeds and directions at multiple points throughout the array.

I want to know who made this man a physicist. He doesn't even know that the wind can change directions.

Brad

The BPA operates at the wholesale level. Sometimes they have given away excess power to utilities but I haven't seen any reduction in rates.

It's an odd dilemma for the BPA. Only way to get rid of excess water is over the spillway but they can't do that because they are under a court order to reduce dissolved gases in the water. At the same time they are obligated to accept all wind energy that can be produced.

The courts will have to decide which obligation is more important.