Wind Power

[Hugo]

I think we all know Enron was corrupt. That's why the company dissolved, and it's why Andrew and Lea Fastow will serve time in jail - 10 years in Andrew's case.

However, to take the example of Enron and use it to write off the whole free market would be like taking the example of Stalinism and using it to write off all governments. The exception can prove the rule, but it cannot become the rule.

We have to look at the big picture, and that is that state-run enterprises across the world are renowed for inefficiency, waste, high prices, poor products and sub-par services when compared to free-market alternatives.

[Whatever]

Hugo, i don't actually disagree with your assertions, but the way you present them is ridiculous. It seems that you more or less feel that if you say something then it is a fact. Saskatchewan's insurance may be inefficient, but how do you conclude that they take federal tax-monies away from you?

Generalized statements about state-run corporations do little but to paint you as a narrow-minded fool when you have not offered evidence for your position. There is a lot of it, I'm sure, so please don't blab your mouth and make it seem that pro-business people are all completely ignorant.

And if it may be offered, August1991, could i see something to substantiate your claim that energy production and sale to the grid is illegal in Quebec? I know that it is not in at least some provinces, (Report on Canadian Electricity Generation) and i have a tough time believing that any utility would turn down additional electrical production.

Hopefully i will never be as stupid as today so as to address people that come to conclusions based on what they read in newspapers, or even just the headlines...but i'm completely loaded so i don't care.

Ciao

[Hugo]

Saskatchewan's insurance may be inefficient, but how do you conclude that they take federal tax-monies away from you?

I'm not concluding that, I'm suspecting that. With government accounting being what it has been in recent years it would take nothing less than a complete and independent audit to convince me that SGI was in no way being subsidised with tax dollars. I have no proof, but the track record is there. When there's a spate of robberies in the area, the cops generally go knock on the door of the guy with a rap sheet, if you understand me. If SGI is held up as a shining example of an exemplary state-run business, I'm going to have to take that with a grain of salt at least.

Generalized statements about state-run corporations do little but to paint you as a narrow-minded fool when you have not offered evidence for your position. There is a lot of it, I'm sure, so please don't blab your mouth and make it seem that pro-business people are all completely ignorant.

I thought it was self-evident, excuse me. If you want a good example of state-run economics, see the Soviet Union and it's consistent underperformance as a national economy.

But for a better example of a mixed economy, see Sweden and Norway. Sweden has seen absolutely no economic growth for eight years, from their own figures, and Norway has 25% of her population below the poverty line (that's an estimate from an independent economic studies board, because Norway does not publicise information on poverty levels). Compared to more free-market economies, both are failures. Both make extensive use of state-run business.

For state-run business in Canada, see Ontario Hydro. Last summer there was a massive blackout and more are forecast this year (it has not gotten really hot yet, thankfully). This was squarely blamed upon the failure of the state-run hydro company to invest in new equipment. That which they have is very old and cannot keep up with peak demands in summer. See also Air Canada, which is not state-run but has been encouraged to inefficiency and ineptitude through countless taxpayer-funded government bailouts.

[mirror]

Perhaps this fellow has at least a partial solution to our huge energy crisis. What are we waiting for, let's get moving!

Answer is blowin' in the wind

After a long and distinguished political career, Gilbert Parent is throwing caution to the winds.

The former speaker of the House of Commons, former ambassador for the environment and 27-year MP for Welland hopes to convince Canadians to undertake the world's largest wind power project.

He envisages a massive collection of turbines on the shores of James Bay or Hudson Bay in northern Ontario, capable of producing 30,000 megawatts of power.

The 10-year megaproject would more than double the province's generating capacity. It would minimize the risk of a crippling energy shortage. It would allow Ontarians to break their dependence on fossil fuels. It would enable Canada to meet its commitments, under the Kyoto Accord, to reduce greenhouse gases. And best of all, says Parent, it would fire up the nation's imagination.

[err]

For state-run business in Canada, see Ontario Hydro. Last summer there was a massive blackout and more are forecast this year (it has not gotten really hot yet, thankfully). This was squarely blamed upon the failure of the state-run hydro company to invest in new equipment.

... The fault was originated in Ohio , at a "private" electricity generator who came online, not synchronized with the grid, an did incredible damage. This fault took out the grid for a large portion of the USA as well, so it's not just Ontario's outdated equipment at fault. You try to speak authoratatively on this matter, but you're speaking anal excrement.

[kimmy]

My Alberta redneck dirt-farming ancestors had wind-power 80 years ago. A windmill turning a generator and charging a bank of big glass batteries supplied all of their electric power. At that time, of course, they did not use much electricity, with only a few electric lights.

Now one of my cousins is reviving the family tradition. He has purchased a quarter-section, and is readying it for the delivery of a new double-wide trailer where his family will live. The cost of having electrical services brought to the home would be in excess of $20,000... a sum of money that has caused he and his wife to think over and over, "there's got to be another way." And, they've decided, there is. For a comparable sum of money they have decided instead to generate their own power using a big array of solar panels, industrial-sized storage batteries, and a big power-inverter to transform this solar goodness into regular 110V, 60Hz wall-plug current... a diesel-powered generator will provide backup power just in case. They won't be the first to go this route-- they got the idea from others in the area who have solar power set-ups of their own and have found it works well.

Since talking to them, I have been thinking to myself... there are sure a lot of roof-tops here in the city. There is sure a lot of sunlight that is just bouncing off of shingles and heading back into space.

-k

[mirror]

I think alternative sources of energy such as solar & wind, which use renewable resources are our future.

This summer I visited some friends in the Caribou of BC and they decided not to hook into the BC Hydro grid system. They are using solar power and wood, and it appears to be working fine for them. They also use a small amount of propane.

They try as much as possible to do their activities during the daytime as to not waste energy but that's no biggie. That's just being smart. Solar power systems will eventually come down in price as more and more people gravitate to them.

[Guest eureka]

Then there is somehting I read in the last week or two and did not take in the details. Something about the development by, I think, some University researchers using nano technology. All I recall was about little dots on some kind of plastic. It converts the infra red solsr rays into electric energy something that existing methods miss. I believe that it resulted in 50% more conversion to energy.

That may be vague but, whatever it was sounded quite exciting in its potential.

[Rambler Man]

I don't really see wind and solar energy production as a major player in solving our reliance on fossil fuels. Something like two-thirds of our electrical energy production in Canada is already provided by hydro-power, another 15% by Nuclear which is also relatively clean. Only 25% or so is still provided by thermal(oil,gas,coal,wood).

I think we would be better off trying to increase green energy in areas of locamotive energy and indoor heating. Wind and solar don't really pack the kind of energy efficiency to help us in this regard.

Moving towards geo-thermal, gas over coal, and improving air scrubbing technologies could help us reduce emissions until we can make the leap to a hydrogen based economy.

What about a law increasing the ethanol content of gasoline and diesel fuels? Vehicles would be less polluting and farmers would benefit from growing such a lucrative cash crop, therefore reducing the amount of government subsidies to the to agriculture. Two birds with one stone.

[crazymf]

My Alberta redneck dirt-farming ancestors had wind-power 80 years ago.  A windmill turning a generator and charging a bank of big glass batteries supplied all of their electric power. At that time, of course, they did not use much electricity, with only a few electric lights.

Now one of my cousins is reviving the family tradition.  He has purchased a quarter-section, and is readying it for the delivery of a new double-wide trailer where his family will live. The cost of having electrical services brought to the home would be in excess of $20,000... a sum of money that has caused he and his wife to think over and over, "there's got to be another way."  And, they've decided, there is.  For a comparable sum of money they have decided instead to generate their own power using a big array of solar panels, industrial-sized storage batteries, and a big power-inverter to transform this solar goodness into regular 110V, 60Hz wall-plug current... a diesel-powered generator will provide backup power just in case.  They won't be the first to go this route-- they got the idea from others in the area who have solar power set-ups of their own and have found it works well.

Since talking to them, I have been thinking to myself... there are sure a lot of roof-tops here in the city. There is sure a lot of sunlight that is just bouncing off of shingles and heading back into space.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is not rocket science or new info. I'm not getting down on you. It'a a great idea, just not new.

As an electrical dude, I've been aware of this for years. Several points of consideration that are prohibitive. Photo voltaic cells are expensive, really expensive. The rv ones are cheap and don't really make any usable power past a light bulb.

Also, photocells have a life. They lose efficiency after a few years and become useless.

Power is not to be played with for safety reasons and to have every T,D or H connected to the grid with his own version of the perfect generation system spells disaster. Electrical deaths would skyrocket.

There may be some kind of a market for a private dude to maintain small systems, but that would add to the cost.

I've considered spending 100g to put a 100kw system on my business roof, but haven't got much past thinking about it. I'll let youse know if it ever gets to the top of the todo list.

I have been heating both my acreage and my business with coal fired boilers for years now. 6 years ago, my gas bill for the year was 6g at my home place. I still pay on average 1.5g for coal, plus I now heat a 40x70 foot shop.

My business uses 1.5 tons/day of coal in the winter, which adds up to about 45$/day. The cost of gas would be about 4 times that or more.

I try to burn more when the wind is blowing toward Edmonton.

[mirror]

Solar Power's New Hot Spot

He expects to have 40 dishes in place for a 1-MW facility by the end of next year, 50 MW in 2008, and all 500 MW by 2011. As each new dish is installed, SoCal Edison will get another 25 KW. The electricity will be delivered only when the sun is shining, but that's when the utility's customers place peak demands on electricity. "Our system is a really good match, providing peak power at times of peak load," notes Osborn.

The 20-year purchase agreement from SoCal Edison is important because Stirling Energy figures it will take about 15 years for investors in the solar farm to recoup their money, assuming sales in the range of 6 cents to 8 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). Peak power usually commands higher prices, though. Once the hardware has been amortized, the dishes promise to mint money, producing peak power for 10 additional years at a cost of a penny per kWh.

Sounds like if these dishes were mass produced the prices might start to become affordable.

It definitely sounds like we need a new pollution tax slapped on people and businesses that pollute. Fresh air is a crucial part of our quality of life.

[crazymf]

Here's some food for thought.

What happens when the natural heat normally injected to the ground in a desert is taken away? Nothing. What happens when thousands of acres or hundreds of square miles of heat is diverted away from the ground. Will the weather pattern eventually be affected for the area?

hmmm....

[SirSpanky]

I don't really see wind and solar energy production as a major player in solving our reliance on fossil fuels. Something like two-thirds of our electrical energy production in Canada is already provided by hydro-power, another 15% by Nuclear which is also relatively clean. Only 25% or so is still provided by thermal(oil,gas,coal,wood).

I think we would be better off trying to increase green energy in areas of locamotive energy and indoor heating. Wind and solar don't really pack the kind of energy efficiency to help us in this regard.

Moving towards geo-thermal, gas over coal, and improving air scrubbing technologies  could help us reduce emissions until we can make the leap to a hydrogen based economy.

What about a law increasing the ethanol content of gasoline and diesel fuels? Vehicles would be less polluting and farmers would benefit from growing such a lucrative cash crop, therefore reducing the amount of government subsidies to the to agriculture. Two birds with one stone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not solutions, but they are viable, and will ease the transition to the next stage. There is not going to be a main source like there is now, in the future. A combination of all alternatives is most likely. And you're right, we'll save gargantuan amounts of electricity through better efficiency. Manitoba Hydro is building a new energy efficient building, that will pay for the extra costs of construction, in about 4 years with its energy efficiency. Staggering.

As to the hydrogen economy, there are huge technological barriers, with no site of solution anytime soon. We're stuck with fossil fuels for at least 30 years.

[Guest eureka]

When the "natural" heat is taken away, all kinds of things will happen as any climatologist will tell you. For one thing, thcould be a return of flora and fauna as the region becomes moister due to the reduced evaporation. There may also be more moisture as the weather patterns shift.

Desertification is proceding at an alarming rate now due ti the increased heat and the consequent increased rate of evaporation.

[BHS]

Here's some food for thought.

What happens when the natural heat normally injected to the ground in a desert is taken away? Nothing. What happens when thousands of acres or hundreds of square miles of heat is diverted away from the ground. Will the weather pattern eventually be affected for the area?

hmmm....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it depends on what you mean by "desert". I'm going to assume you mean a sandy sub tropical desert. (As opposed to a frozen polar desert).

I am by no means an expert on weather or geothermal mechanics, but this is what I've gathered on the subject: sand isn't an effective absorber of heat but reflects it back into space. Air temperatures in a desert in daytime are higher because the air is receiving a double dosage of UV radiation. However, air temperature at night is very low due to lower IR radiation coming from the ground.

Absorbing UV radiation in the daytime would lower the daytime air temperature and would bring down the average temperature, but not as much as you might expect because of the already low nightime temperature.

Furthermore, it wouldn't likely affect precipitation. A desert is a desert to begin with not because of heat but because of a lack of moisture.

Thousands of square miles of UV absorbant material in the desert would affect the local air temperature, which in turn *might* have an impact on cooling the surrounding non-desert ecosystem. But it wouldn't have much of an impact on global weather, which is driven more by ground and water temperatures.

The "greenhouse effect" is based on the idea that "greenhouse gases" (primarily CO2) which reflect IR back to the surface have risen dramatically since the dawn of the Industrial Age, raising air temperature sufficiently to prevent cooling of the land and sea, which means increase IR, etc. But we're talking about a global phenonmenon (and one that has yet to be proven - there's not enough evidence to definitively link the "greenhouse effect" to any global warming we may be experiencing).

[Guest eureka]

You are mostly right, BHS. However, some 70% of the world's wetlands have desertified in the last 30 years due to the "unproven" climate change. There has been a sharp reduction in rainfall in these areas due to the changing temterature regime.

When the occasional rain falls on Lake Eyre in Australia, the desert blooms. It has not happened in a long while as the temperature increases.

But the physics of your post seems to be correct. Why do you spoli a good post with absurdities about the "Greenhouse" effect?

[B. Max]

You are mostly right, BHS. However, some 70% of the world's wetlands have desertified in the last 30 years due to the "unproven" climate change. There has been a sharp reduction in rainfall in these areas due to the changing temterature regime.

When the occasional rain falls on Lake Eyre in Australia, the desert blooms. It has not happened in a long while as the temperature increases.

But the physics of your post seems to be correct. Why do you spoli a good post with absurdities about the "Greenhouse" effect?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is no proof or evidence of global warming, further more, that C02 is causing something that doesn't exist.

http://www.junkscience.com/july04/Daily_Mail-Bellamy.htm

[BHS]

You are mostly right, BHS. However, some 70% of the world's wetlands have desertified in the last 30 years due to the "unproven" climate change. There has been a sharp reduction in rainfall in these areas due to the changing temterature regime.

When the occasional rain falls on Lake Eyre in Australia, the desert blooms. It has not happened in a long while as the temperature increases.

But the physics of your post seems to be correct. Why do you spoli a good post with absurdities about the "Greenhouse" effect?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't say climate change was unproven. I said the "greenhouse effect" is an unproven cause of climate change.

[Guest eureka]

BMax, I simply cannot be bothered with that. It has been debunked countless times all over the world as well as on these forums.

[Guest eureka]

No reputable climatologist, or any other 'ist, now suggests that CO2 is not the prime cause. If there is an exception to that, it is the couple of Russians trying to make a name for themselves with a hypothesis that has been tested and discarded by scientists the world over.

[BHS]

No one has ever proven that CO2 has ever caused a change in climate, in the entire history of the Earth. In fact, when the geological record is compared to the composition of gases trapped in ice, CO2 fluctuations tend to follow climate change rather than proceed it.

[B. Max]

BMax, I simply cannot be bothered with that. It has been debunked countless times all over the world as well as on these forums.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It has not been debunked because there is no proof for the claims made for global warming. What has been debunked are the wild claims of the global warming crowd.

[crazymf]

I had an interesting chat with a client of mine a few years ago. He is an archeoanthropologist. We didn't have much in common to talk about but I brought up the global warming subject. He said with all the studying going on, they don't know anything more at the end of the day than when they started because records of climate are too short to account for long term cycles.

So I didn't feel too guilty buying my coal boilers after that.

[Guest eureka]

Records of climate change and CO2 concentrations go back 420,000 years with certainty, and for about 20 million years with some degree of confidence.

For that 420,000 years, there is a direct correlation between CO 2 levels and temperature. The present level is higher than it has been in that time period.

There is no uncertainty any more. Global warming is here and it is certain to approach something that the Earth has not experienced in the whole of human history.

[B. Max]

The funny thing is, water vapor is around 97% of greenhouse gases with CO2 being around 2%. Yet the green growd want to burn hydrogen that gives off nothing but water to be released into the air to increase the 97%. Not to mention how one would ever stay on the road in the winter time with all that water spilling on the road and turning to ice.