OT wind power again

This morning's local paper has an interesting story about the
viability of wind power in the Buckeye state:

http://www.cleveland.com/printer/pri...560.xml&coll=2

graphic to go with story:

http://www.cleveland.com/business/wi...ind_power.html

I can't imagine we'll get to replacing all of the coal furnaces with
wind turbines (note the statement at the end of the story that says
power companies can't pass on the cost of new facilities to
customers), but if even *some* were built, it's gotta be a good thing.

Wm

wrote in message
oups.com...
This morning's local paper has an interesting story about the
viability of wind power in the Buckeye state:

http://www.cleveland.com/printer/pri...560.xml&coll=2

graphic to go with story:

http://www.cleveland.com/business/wi...ind_power.html

Lots of interesting stuff there. What struck me most immediately was, "The
study did not look at the Great Lakes..." The Great Lakes? DOH (aka, how
stupid not to have thought of it)! Lake Erie has a surface area of about
25,700 sq. km. (9,910 sq. mi.). Allowing for a liberal 500 foot spacing,
that would mean roughly 100 wind driven generators per square mile, for a
total of nearly 10,000! At an average depth of 19 meters (62 feet)
construction would be a snap. Unlike sea water, which is highly corrosive,
fresh water is actually more benign than air for many
materials.....reinforced concrete piers would last a LONG time. The
structures would also be highly beneficial for fish. There is nothing to
block the wind out there. Water heats up and cools down at a different rate
than the surrounding land. As a result the air above the two surfaces also
changes temperature differentially. This in turn, causes an air pressure
gradient which results in highly regular winds, which shift from onshore to
offshore.....twice a day.....a lot like tides in some respects, and this is
in addition to larger air masses moving through the area. After the
installation of the first few units, electrical power for additional
construction would be free. Ontario is smaller than Erie (their combined
surface area is less than that of Michigan.....Huron and Superior are larger
still) but still big enough to generate a LOT of power. The big three would
pose engineering challenges (all of them have spots that get to over 700
feet deep) that probably wouldn't be worth the trouble to work around, but
there's still plenty of room for many thousands more generators! The mind
reels at the possibilities!

Well, o.k., that may be a bit more amibitious (and politically
suicidal.....not that that's a bad thing) than we want to get right
away......or need, for that matter.

I can't imagine we'll get to replacing all of the coal furnaces with
wind turbines

I think there's no real technological barier to doing so. Although wind
power is the only demonstrably viable alternative to conventional sources of
electricity (it IS being used extensively, whereas others remain essentially
experimental and unproven, despite a few more or less succesful pilot
projects) there is every reason to believe that the technology will continue
to improve as more of the money that used to be used to fight it is
channelled into development.

(note the statement at the end of the story that says
power companies can't pass on the cost of new facilities to
customers),

A bit of lexical and legalistic legerdemaine there, I think. Consumers pay
for EVERYTHING.

but if even *some* were built, it's gotta be a good thing.

Amen.

Wolfgang

On Apr 20, 12:24 pm, "Wolfgang" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

This morning's local paper has an interesting story about the
viability of wind power in the Buckeye state:

http://www.cleveland.com/printer/pri...ness-1/1177058...

graphic to go with story:

http://www.cleveland.com/business/wi...ind_power.html

Lots of interesting stuff there. What struck me most immediately was, "The
study did not look at the Great Lakes..." The Great Lakes? DOH (aka, how
stupid not to have thought of it)! Lake Erie has a surface area of about
25,700 sq. km. (9,910 sq. mi.). Allowing for a liberal 500 foot spacing,
that would mean roughly 100 wind driven generators per square mile, for a
total of nearly 10,000! At an average depth of 19 meters (62 feet)
construction would be a snap. Unlike sea water, which is highly corrosive,
fresh water is actually more benign than air for many
materials.....reinforced concrete piers would last a LONG time. The
structures would also be highly beneficial for fish. There is nothing to
block the wind out there. Water heats up and cools down at a different rate
than the surrounding land. As a result the air above the two surfaces also
changes temperature differentially. This in turn, causes an air pressure
gradient which results in highly regular winds, which shift from onshore to
offshore.....twice a day.....a lot like tides in some respects, and this is
in addition to larger air masses moving through the area. After the
installation of the first few units, electrical power for additional
construction would be free. Ontario is smaller than Erie (their combined
surface area is less than that of Michigan.....Huron and Superior are larger
still) but still big enough to generate a LOT of power. The big three would
pose engineering challenges (all of them have spots that get to over 700
feet deep) that probably wouldn't be worth the trouble to work around, but
there's still plenty of room for many thousands more generators! The mind
reels at the possibilities!

Well, o.k., that may be a bit more amibitious (and politically
suicidal.....not that that's a bad thing) than we want to get right
away......or need, for that matter.

I can't imagine we'll get to replacing all of the coal furnaces with
wind turbines

I think there's no real technological barier to doing so. Although wind
power is the only demonstrably viable alternative to conventional sources of
electricity (it IS being used extensively, whereas others remain essentially
experimental and unproven, despite a few more or less succesful pilot
projects) there is every reason to believe that the technology will continue
to improve as more of the money that used to be used to fight it is
channelled into development.

(note the statement at the end of the story that says
power companies can't pass on the cost of new facilities to
customers),

A bit of lexical and legalistic legerdemaine there, I think. Consumers pay
for EVERYTHING.

but if even *some* were built, it's gotta be a good thing.

Amen.

Wolfgang

I have read of lots of wind farms but none in water that iced over.
Maintenance would be a bitch. even the offshore ones you could get to
in a boat. I wouln't want to drive the service truck out on a Frozen
Lake Erie to fix a wind turbine. A truck maby but not a crane big
enough to replace a blade. The ones in Iowa, North Dakota and other
places are going to subjected to ice build up. So far I haven't read
of any windmills with deicing systems. I suspect there going to let
you sit around in the dark if the wind farm ices up.
The western Dakotas, Nebraska and Alberta have wind fields rich enough
to power the whole country. One of th eproblems is getting it out of
there. To get the power the east coast would need would require a
swath of transmission lines 5 or 6 miles accross. One proposal is to
convert it to hydrogen and ship that back in a pipe. Hydrogen fuel
cells would convert it back to AC power. The fuel cell would be
located in distribution subs ( there is one within 10- 12 miles of
your house) and you would not see any difference from what you have
now. You would notice something on you elelctric bill , but thats
going to happen anyway.
They will also find ways to pack the pipeline or otherwise stroe some
hydrogen so if they wind didn't blow you wouldn't have to stay home
from work.

Wolfie,
Are you seriously suggesting that the voting public surrounding Lake Erie is
going to sit idly by and allow the entire surface to be covered by little
wind generators??
I suspect you would see significant opposition to even a fraction of that
proposal.
Tom
p.s. That NIMBY thing is pretty much a human constant.

"BJ Conner" wrote in message
oups.com...

I have read of lots of wind farms but none in water that iced over.
Maintenance would be a bitch. even the offshore ones you could get to
in a boat. I wouln't want to drive the service truck out on a Frozen
Lake Erie to fix a wind turbine. A truck maby but not a crane big
enough to replace a blade.

I guess my basic arithemtic skills are about as good as the next
guy's.....but sometimes my typing and copyediting leave something to be
desired. At a hundred per square mile, Lake Erie would be home to nearly
1,000,000 wind powered generators! So, a few hundred go down between the
middle of January and early March every year. Big deal. Leave 'em till
spring.

The ones in Iowa, North Dakota and other
places are going to subjected to ice build up. So far I haven't read
of any windmills with deicing systems. I suspect there going to let
you sit around in the dark if the wind farm ices up.

So far, I haven't read anything (aside from this) about them icing up. At
ten rpm, or thereabouts, I suspect it wouldn't generally be catastophic
anyway. But, heck, let's assume that it is. How to get around this
problem? Well, we could probably achieve a great deal by having excess
generating capacity......put a few in places where they aren't likely to ice
up....say, the Gulf of Mexico, for example. Well, sure, but THOSE would be
subject to hurricanes! Yeah, but in hurricane season, Kansas ROCKS! Then
too, I don't think it stretches credulity to suppose that some especially
bright engineer somewhere could invent a defroster or something......if only
there were a reliable source of electrity or something to power it.

The western Dakotas, Nebraska and Alberta have wind fields rich enough
to power the whole country. One of th eproblems is getting it out of
there.

Well, in the case of Alberta, there's always extradition.

To get the power the east coast would need would require a
swath of transmission lines 5 or 6 miles accross. One proposal is to
convert it to hydrogen and ship that back in a pipe. Hydrogen fuel
cells would convert it back to AC power. The fuel cell would be
located in distribution subs ( there is one within 10- 12 miles of
your house) and you would not see any difference from what you have
now. You would notice something on you elelctric bill , but thats
going to happen anyway.
They will also find ways to pack the pipeline or otherwise stroe some
hydrogen so if they wind didn't blow you wouldn't have to stay home
from work.

Assuming that the estimate of a 5-6 mile wide corridor of transmission lines
is correct, so what? That's nickel-dime engineering in today's world.
Besides, except for urban areas, which are easily bypassed, it wouldn't (or,
at least shouldn't) have any significant impact on current land use policies
or practices beneath the wires......except for small patches around the
tower bases, which would serve the function of micro-habitat refuges for all
kinds of critters and plants that are currently plowed, poisoned, trapped,
burned, shot or otherwise obliterated in the desperate effort to kill every
living thing that is not corn, wheat, oats, barley, soybeans, timothy or
clover in every fictionally arable hell of salt pan, clay, hard rock, road
bed or bog in North America. In any case, the declared potential of this
region for electrical generating capacity sufficient to meet the needs of
the nation does imply (much less assure) that all of it MUST be done there.
Other places can (and WILL) carry part of the load. There will be no need
to transmit electrical power from a single location halfway across the
continent.....in any direction.

As for hydrogen (regardless of application or miracle dependent scheme), it,
like solar, looks pretty much like a non-starter sans some unforeseeable
technological breakthrough. Both of them, and methane and other fuel cell
technologies, show tremendous potential for powering cell phones and perhaps
even stereo systems capable of provoking campground neighbors to entirely
justifiable homicide (and, yes, all those cute, although as yet
non-existent, nano-machines too), but neither of them is going to be turning
much bauxite into aluminum any time soon. Bank on it.

Wolfgang

Wolfgang wrote:

As for hydrogen (regardless of application or miracle dependent scheme), it,
like solar, looks pretty much like a non-starter sans some unforeseeable
technological breakthrough.

Hydrogen isn't a primary source of energy. It's merely a way to store
energy. Hydrogen can be obtained from fossil fuels (natural gas is
currently the cheapest source) or by electrolysis of water (which
requires cheap, abundant electricity). Using natural gas as a feed stock
is counterproductive from a climate perspective because it produces CO2.
Electrolosis is the way to go -- producing nothing but hydrogen and
oxygen, but you need to get the electricity from somewhere.

Fortunately, cheap and abundant electricity from a new solar technology
looks promising:

http://www.nanosolar.com/

Of course, electricity can also be produced with no CO2 emissions using
nuclear power.

Windmills on Lake Erie. Give me a frigging break. Maybe we could wire up
millions of hamster-wheel generators. Ever think of that?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

That leaves black holes. I don't know **** about black holes.....except
that they are (well, we HOPE they are) too far away to do us a great deal
of good in the immediate future.

actually, there is a chance that some very small ones will be created in the
area around the French/Swiss border
late this year via particle collisions........but, don't feel bad; NOBODY
really understands them too well, which is why they are banging particles
together to study the whole mess.

Since the recent discovery of deep-water geothermal vents we have learned
that "THE" requisite element for life is liquid water (well, that and a
few niggling micro-nutrients).

Most of us in the biological sciences pretty much had the strong suspicion
this was the case for years, at least insofar as we on Earth define the term
"life. Also, thanks for the rambling info-fest, including useful
cocktail-party
trivia about the extent of grass species(most who took botany and stayed
awake may have been aware of that one, as well), but let's cut to the chase.
Wind, while some aspects have been figured out, is not going to produce the
levels of power needed, unless mankind carpets the planet with
wind-turbines.
As much as it might trouble some, nuclear, with adequate spending on
development of recyclable fuel and processes to recycle it, probably is the
most practical way to go.
See what France is already doing today, and spend some money to improve
beyond that. Should be do-able, and the generating capacity is huge. Sure,
my suggestion doesn't come with any further insights into quantum physics,
Greek mythology or chemical communication between flagellate microbes, but
it is an alternative to consider regarding energy.

p.s. That NIMBY thing is pretty much a human constant.

So is death.

Wolfgang


and taxes, don't forget taxes!!!

Tom

"Tom Littleton" wrote in message
news:HSbWh.52$Rd.43@trndny08...
Wolfie,
Are you seriously suggesting that the voting public surrounding Lake Erie
is going to sit idly by and allow the entire surface to be covered by
little wind generators??

Hm.....well, I admit that it SOUNDS kinda like me. But no, I think not. If
it were really me, it would be BIGASS wind generators!

I suspect you would see significant opposition to even a fraction of that
proposal.

Whatever transpires in the next few decades (we should live so long!) we
will see more than merely significant opposition to any and all of it.

Meanwhile, energy is the most addictive drug of them all.......and there's
more people coming to the party every day.....around the world. Any way you
cut the pie, we need a much bigger pie.....NOW!! For the foreseeable
future, wind power is the only viable adjunct to conventional fossil fuel
burning electrical generation. Fission is dead. Hydro is dead. Biofuels,
fusion, solar, wave, tidal, fuel cell, temperature gradient and a host of
others are stillborn. The trouble is that none of them.....or their
adherents.....has quite figured that out yet. They will. That leaves black
holes. I don't know **** about black holes.....except that they are (well,
we HOPE they are) too far away to do us a great deal of good in the
immediate future.

Wind.....not just air mind you.....is the element we live in. Without it we
are dead. Well, and light.....we need that too.....um......and water For
the past billion years or so, life has evolved in the presence of and as a
direct product of.....wait for it.....water, wind and sunlight (o.k., yeah,
and some trace elements and ****). What I propose is that we take the
course of least resistance.....and, not so incidentally, maximum gain. We
allow the three elemental elements to do what they do best.

Water is, literally, the "stuff" of life. Since the recent discovery of
deep-water geothermal vents we have learned that "THE" requisite element for
life is liquid water (well, that and a few niggling micro-nutrients). But
water is also an extremely (which is to say, fatally) hostile element for
air breathers to work, play, or otherwise conduct business in. Our best
course of action is to keep it clean, let it flow, take an occasional sip,
and wade at the margins while fishing.....and leave it alone to do what it
does best.

Sunlight is the engine, or, more literally, the fuel, that drives the whole
mess. Naturally, it would occur to some bright lass or lad somewhere that
being virtually limitless, it is the obvious choice for us to look to as a
source of supply for our own energy needs. But, bright as it is on those
clear, cloudless summer days, sunlight is tenuous.....diffuse. After all,
occasional melanomas notwithstanding, we go out into it (as we have for a
couple million years) without being immediately blinded or roasted. It
really isn't much good for boiling water. What it IS good for is
photosynthesis (a process which, for our purposes here, may be defined as
something which does us absolutely no good for our purposes here.....unless
we want to grow **** just to burn it.....which is EXACTLY what got us into
this ****ing mess in the first place!). Let the sunlight do what it does
best, grow living things, decompose some of the leftovers, and keep the
engine running.

Wind.....ah, the wind!.....the gentle zephyr and the raging gale! What the
hell is THAT good for? Well, for a start, think "grass." Grass? Yeah,
grass.....as in corn, wheat, oats, rice, barley, blue stem, bunch, etc.,
etc., etc. (I'll bet a shiny new nickel that most of you didn't know that
grasses are second only to the orchids {which, except for the vanilla
extracted from one particular type, are thoroughly useless.....in practical
terms} in the number of terrestrial plant species worldwide.......and second
to none in worldwide distribution and sheer bulk). So? So, grasses are
what we eat.....and what what we eat eats. And grasses (for the most part)
don't exist without wind.....they are typcially wind pollinated. So? So,
what wind does best is MOVE THINGS. Things like grass pollen.....things
like tumbleweed.....things like double-wide trailers.....things like a pall
of filth hanging over a densely populated urban area.....things
like......yup, generators! And the best thing about it is that sunlight
guarantees that the supply is limitless, and free, and that it is readily
(which is to say, universally) available, and that we cleared the basic
technological hurdles centuries ago (yes, literally), and that it occurs in
what is, for air breathers, a congenial environment, and that......IT
ALREADY DOES EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE HOPING IT MIGHT SOMEDAY DO FOR US!!! Not
all that bad, thinks I.

Lake Erie? Chernobyl.....Three Mile Island.....Hanover.....Pleasant
Prairie.....Point Beach.....West Virginia.....acid rain.....Exxon
Valdez.....North
Slope.....Iraq.....Venezuela.....Suez.....Bush.... .China.....India.....Russia.....,
......, .....

Tom
p.s. That NIMBY thing is pretty much a human constant.

So is death.

Wolfgang

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

snipped
Wolfie, I suspect you are overlooking my comment regarding recyclable
nuclear fuels. It can be done, and
thus keeps the ongoing production of dangerous stuff to a minimum. Let's
face it, it isn't like we are creating fresh uranium, for instance, it was
here all along. No one, at least that I know of, is talking about wantonly
dumping the toxic wastes around the planet(ok, maybe some Republicans are,
but I figure they're just joshing). As for the 'carpet a quarter of the
planet' estimate, it would seem
you are willing to exaggerate to make your bid for wind power. Not that such
exaggeration isn't mildly amusing, but if you, or anyone wants to make a
pitch for some sort of dependence upon wind energy, the practical plan has
to be in place. Thus far, I haven't heard it, from you or anyone else.......
Tom
.....don't feel bad about the taxes. It won't rile you up again for a
year(unless you have to send in estimated payments, in which case July will
be here in no time!).

"rw" wrote in message
nk.net...
Wolfgang wrote:

As for hydrogen (regardless of application or miracle dependent scheme),
it, like solar, looks pretty much like a non-starter sans some
unforeseeable technological breakthrough.

Hydrogen isn't a primary source of energy.

No kidding?

It's merely a way to store energy.

No ****?

Hydrogen can be obtained from fossil fuels

Really?

(natural gas is currently the cheapest source) or by electrolysis of water
(which requires cheap, abundant electricity).

Well, how about if we burn the hydrogen (or natural gas) to boil water to
make steam to turn turbines to drive generators to make the electricity?

Using natural gas as a feed stock is counterproductive from a climate
perspective because it produces CO2.

Well, yeah, there's that.....and the fact that, unlike you, cows probably
think their own farts taste like ****.

Electrolosis is the way to go -- producing nothing but hydrogen and
oxygen,

It can also remove those unsightly hairs growing out of your ears and nose
and eye sockets.

but you need to get the electricity from somewhere.

Hm.....hey!....how about if we burn all that unsightly hair we just
harvested from your eye sockets to make steam to turn turbines to drive
generators to make electricity?

Fortunately, cheap and abundant electricity from a new solar technology
looks promising:

http://www.nanosolar.com/

O.k., hold your breath......call me when it's ready.

Of course, electricity can also be produced with no CO2 emissions using
nuclear power.

Well.....gosh.....why didn't WE think of that?!

Windmills on Lake Erie.

Yes, seriously, it's every bit as real as....oh....Fawn Lake, I
guess.....unless they burned it in the last couple of weeks and nobody told
me.

Give me a frigging break.

Yeah, you could probably use a break from frigging. Hey! I've got it!
Maybe you could rent a boyfriend from one of those lovely watering holes in
Stanley you've told us so much about!

Maybe we could wire up millions of hamster-wheel generators. Ever think of
that?

Um......o.k., I give up. Why would you want to put hamster wheels in Lake
Erie?

Moron.

Wolfgang
guess where my hands are.