Excellent rant, Ric. Not to say of course, that figurers are necessarily liars.

For every Ying, there is a Yang . . eh?

http://www.revolttechnology.com/

Pataents and Nano-tech. = TG

I read some where that in switzerland they use excess nuclear power to pump water up to a reservovir to store potential power. Perhaps this is a solution?

What ever the experience of Locke in Texas, it does not disqualify areas where electricity generated by wind power is useful. It does have its well know drawbacks, though it is a good addition to the conventional power generation.
South Alberta is well known for its wind tunnel from the Crowsnest Pass to Lethbridge, the wind is more constant than not. There are currently about 500 wind turbines generating electricity.
In the late 90’s the wind power was more expansive than the coal generated power in the province. Consumers were given an option on their monthly electricity bill to pay extra if they chose the wind power, some did.
Eventually the Calgary Transit bought all of the power to run the C-trains.
At that time there were no subsidies, no handouts to the producers. It may have changed, perhaps Vitruvius might know.
Not being one of the socialist control freaks, greeners or AGW scientologists, it is easy to see that wind power is clean and welcome addition to power generation, as long as the producers pay their own way.
While some may say that to store the wind generated energy is somewhat awkward at this time, it is still valid to say that it can be done by using the power to extract hydrogen, this then can be used in other ways as a source of energy.
If somebody wants an ideal in all of this, maybe they will live in disappointment for a long time.

"Do you know why there aren't any Tesla Roadsters on the road? Because the makers bought the entire production of the factory that made the batteries -- and didn't even get enough for all the prototypes!"

Sorry, but that's just nonsense. The Roadster's battery pack is essentially composed of 6,800 laptop batteries. Millions of laptops are sold every month. Even if Tesla created 100 prototypes, that's only 680,000 batteries - much less than the monthly laptop sales of any major manufacturer.

The rest of the rant might be accurate - at least I don't see any major flaws, but this bit about the roadster is deffinitely RTFO. Anyone who's been following it's development would know that the biggest problem causing delays with the Roadster has been the transmission, and that's mainly due to the fact that the designers demanded a 2 speed transmission, despite the experts telling them to go with a single speed drivetrain.

The trick, as Ric points out, is getting alternative power to supply baseload, not just peak.

Wind is the world’s fastest growing electric energy source. Because it is intermittent, though, wind is not
used to supply baseload electric power today. Interconnecting wind farms through the transmission grid is
a simple and effective way of reducing deliverable wind power swings caused by wind intermittency. As
more farms are interconnected in an array, wind speed correlation among sites decreases and so does the
probability that all sites experience the same wind regime at the same time. The array consequently behaves
more and more similarly to a single farm with steady wind speed and thus steady deliverable wind power.
In this study, benefits of interconnecting wind farms were evaluated for 19 sites, located in the midwestern
United States, with annual average wind speeds at 80 m above ground, the hub height of modern wind
turbines, greater than 6.9 m s
-1(class 3 or greater).

It was found that an average of 33% and a maximum
of 47% of yearly averaged wind power from interconnected farms can be used as reliable, baseload electric
power. Equally significant, interconnecting multiple wind farms to a common point and then connecting
that point to a far-away city can allow the long-distance portion of transmission capacity to be reduced, for
example, by 20% with only a 1.6% loss of energy. Although most parameters, such as intermittency,
improved less than linearly as the number of interconnected sites increased, no saturation of the benefits
was found. Thus, the benefits of interconnection continue to increase with more and more interconnected
sites.

Source:http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07_jamc.pdf

This particular study concludes that the solution is just a matter of scale.

As far as the "we've exhausted our ability to develop any new battery technology" argument goes, have a little faith Ric ;).

While interesting from an engineering perspective, the Tesla Roadster is highly impractical. The cost of the vehicle is $100,000 US and the stored energy in the fully charged battery pack is the equivalent of 8 liters of gasoline.

The battery pack is described at http://www.teslamotors.com/display_data/TeslaRoadsterBatterySystem.pdf
and I have a number of concerns with LiIon batteries. While far better then nickel-hydride batteries, they do lose capacity with repetative charge/discharge cycles. This loss of capacity is temperature dependant and there is also an aging process of LiIon batteries that limits the lifespan of the battery pack to at most 5 years (if the lifespan of my laptop batteries is equivalent to the Tesla Roadster batteries).

If I had $100K to blow on a vehicle, I'd get a Ford Expedition and put the rest of the money aside for gasoline which, even with expected price increases, will probably not get me close to a total cost of $100,000 after 5 years of driving. Actually I can't imagine spending that much for a vehicle and my last car was a $3700 69 Dodge Dart.

It would be far better to increase fuel efficiency of vehicles until better electrical energy storage technology comes along. I'll consider going to an electric vehicle once room temperature superconductors are developed.

One fundamental point that pro-wind people miss entirely is that it takes power to make power--a lot of power. A base load coal or nuclear plant requires 50-100 MW to operate all of its pumps, valves, control system, pulverizers, blowers, conveyors etc. A quirky fact about electricity is that when demand outstrips supply, everything dies--this leads to massive regional blackouts as happened in Florida a little while back. When base load plants loose their external supply of electricity, they automatically shutdown until external power is restored. This is why the NY blackout of a few years ago took many hours to resolve.

In Texas not long ago (Feb.), over-dependence on wind power from west Texas nearly caused a major regional blackout. The wind unexpectedly died down, causing a significant drop in available electricity to the grid. Fortunately, automatic controls and grid operator action were able to rapidly cut over 1000 MW of power to certain industrial customers per their emergency plan, and the blackout was averted. Were this not the case, all of TX's base load plants would have shut down causing a cascading regional blackout.

It is for the basic reasons of electric supply-demand concerns, and the unpredictability of the winds that wind power will FOREVER be relegated to less than 10% of our power production.

That is, unless you want to have very regular regional blackouts--ask Iraqis what it is like to live that way.

the very fact is that the greater oxidation/reduction numbers mean higher bonding and therefore more difficult and more expensive to extract.

no wind turbines would be installed without subsidies.

Texas is a fine place to install wind turbines and is just as windy as southern Alberta.

Even with subsidies , turbines are still installed in the windiest places , save Nantucket where Ted Kennedy wants an unobstructed "heritage view"

Calgary transit may have bought the "green power" but it is purely a contractual arrangement , they actually get less than 5% of the moving electrons from the windturbines and they paid a premiem over normal power rates. more of an advertising scheme than anything else as the electricity is pulled of the same grid as anyone else. Actually a stop and go DC system like the LRT would be one of the worst kind of power draws for a wind turbine system .If Calgary transit wanted to really explain themselves they could explain how they bought the wrong kind of trains last time and had to put inverters on the tops of all of them to change the DC power in the lines back to AC power for the motors. the AC to DC to AC again -just isnt efficient. so couple subsidized power gens, 30% line loss , and 20 % conversion loss and subsidized transit fares and explain the efficiency to me please? could explain the 14% tax increase Bronco Bill and his army of servants wants to drop on us next year in Calgree,Albirda

Wind power Does have its uses. I for one intend to have a small windmill at our future home....

One large drawback I have seen in windmill farms, however: There are a number of them across Pennsylvania, including one massive set near Bethlehem, where two of my cousins live. They sit right in the middle of a major migration route for birds, especially hawks. And they wipe out thousands of birds every year.

But I am sure hugger is fine with that.

"Wind power Does have its uses."

And the turbine can be used to annoy the kennedy clan.

[quote] I'll consider going to an electric vehicle once room temperature superconductors are developed.[/quote]
Loki,
I think the existing State of Superconductivity is been considered for DC to DC summing points in AC Electrical Grids. It would change the "wild ride" Source loading problems.

Very good rant!

So the Dutch have been wrong for hundreds of years?

Celina, there's a similar scheme in the UK for load flattening.

But if all that subsidy money is going from meddling public hands to private corporate interests, isn't that a good thing? Aren't all corporate welfare schemes good things in that sense? They deprive the government of the revenue required to hire more tiresome drudges to run your life and to exert control over your activities through observation and enforcement. It is the great circle of life. All that was bad is good again. Go in peace.

Wow!! Give this guy the Nobel Prize. No. On second thought, I'd rather see him honored with some prestigious and worthy of his intellect. That's the best damned statement against the leftard view of this issue I've yet to read. Hard to imagine it will be topped any time in the future.

Kate: thanks for yet another negative piece of information. Now I guess it's my job to go and find something positive about the chances solar and/or wind power might one day at least augment the burning of fossil fuels. No chance that you might provide the counter argument, eh?

Cal 2 is right on all points. (30 to 40% is max utilization)

Samuel: an interconnected grid as described would be massively expensive not to mention complicated and difficult to control and it still would require coal-fired or similar 100% back-up.

alex: continue with your math and factor in that the US alone consumes 30 million new vehicles per year (200 billion laptop batteries per year by my calc). Ric Locke's main point is correct - the required materials for that amount of battery capacity simply doesn't exist.

celina: pump storage - which is what you describe is fairly common and works as advertised (there are quite a few potential sites here in AB, BTW). However, it is just as expensive and environmentally harmful as a regular hydro dam without creating any new power. So, unless there is relatively free power available and the peak demand price is high enough, they are uneconomical.

Richard ball: something called the internal combustion engine and the steam boiler replaced the dutch wind turbine.

The Dutch aren't wrong itjust happens that the storage problem isn't the same for pumping stations, and that pre-modern the poor dutch had no alternative power sources, so you make do, you notice as soon as the Dutch and danes and Brits had an alternative trad windmills were no longer built...

Modern wind power has it's uses. They are providing an intermittent stream of power in certain places that must usually be stored up in batteries. The places this makes sense are : A. isolated (makes it too expensive to maintain a fueled gen unit, or string some cable to it)
B. Really Windy C. And usually doesn't actually need much power - radio / light beacons, a single isolated house, a monitoring station.

Ask any serious power enginneer/economist - the guys and gals who make sure your damn lights turn on when you flick the switch, and the that the elevators run amd your fridge stays cold 24/7 - and who kow what a kilowatt costs and what it costs to NOT have it when you need it - uniformly they HATE wind turbines, except in special cases noted above, as it is a mal-investment.

Unless some underlying technology radically changes there is no substitute for heavy baseline power plants if you want modern civilization.

Modern civilization, like democracy, is a poor system, but the alternatives are all worse. A LOT worse.

Being convinced of a mistake by the best available science doesn't make it less a mistake.

Some of the best scientific experts of their day were convinced (a) heavier-than-air flight was impossible, (b) travelling by train at more than 50 mph would kill passengers via asphyxiation, (c) the sound barrier was physically impossible to break, (d) the energy that could be obtained by splitting the atom was negligible at best.

You don't have to consciously lie for your figures to be wrong - you just have to be wrong. Which can happen to anyone. (And the old canard about wind farms, or solar panels, never producing enough energy to pay back the energy expended to make them is just incorrect - the site renewableenergyaccess.com is a good intro on some of the figures on this.)

There are two generating systems in Pickering Ont. One is a wind turbine and the other, 2 Nuclear Generating Stations. You can win 10 carbon credits if you guess correctly which one is the backup?

Perhaps you might want to know that coal generating power stations like Sundance, use between 40 -50% of the power generated, to run all the pumps that are used in the cooling system.

I most graciously accept my new role as a contributor to Kate's sources from whence to Cherry pick. Equal billing should be afforded of course.

I did post substantiating material regarding battery technology development, and more grounded applications of examples of Electric based automotive innovations than the example above. But we wouldn't want to confuse anyone would we?

On presenting overall common sense base arguments, the pack went off course 90% and went headlong into the favored diversion. That discussion is still ongoing. If you read my response to the above poster, you will see no one effectively addressed that either. Then there was my posting on sea levels rising. No opinion or facts were offered to dispute my contentions.

Some people appear afraid of the oil companies mantras being challenged.

Now let's consider that wind turbine generated power can be routed into the grid, and thus supply can be regulated at conventional sources as is currently the case. Let's consider that wind generation can be individually or commercially applied. Let's consider that even as it is currently, it is a positive contributing factor to reduction in use of carbon based fuels. Let's consider it is an industry in its infancy. Perhaps you could think of sporting about Sas catchy wan in a Model T truck hauling a load of sod for your new home.

Information regarding our locale;

A quick check of the Northumberland Straight area suggests average annual wind speeds in excess of 30 km per hr.

Generally, average annual wind speeds of at least 4.0-4.5 m/s (14.4- 16.2 km/h; 9.0-10.2 mph) are needed for a wind turbine to produce enough electricity to be cost-effective.

Did you check the price of gas lately? Better still, the price of diesel. The stuff all those 18 wheelers run on. Diesel is a byproduct in the process of refining gasoline is it not? In other words, if you are going to make gas, you get diesel whether you want it or not. So why is it in the $1.40 per litre range? The only justification I've heard is that they can only make so much and all those nasty people buying Jetta's and such are at fault. Must punish and deter them.

Hugger

Lev and Stephen J:

Please cite your evidence/examples. None of the wind facilities I have read about are economic particularly when the cost of back-up is factored in

John Daly - I think you misunderstand the process here. Rik Locke put out his statement and Kate posted it. Several who have commented on the post have given a different perspective. That is what this site is about. Different points of view and a sharing of information. Don't vilify Kate for putting this on her site. If you have issues with the piece, as they say, don't shoot the messenger, shoot down the message. Are you capable of that?

We have a lot of wind turbines here in Texas, and hardly a day goes by that a truck doesn't pass my store carrying another one.

Funny thing is Good Morning America just had a story on this same subject and nothing of what Ric says was mentioned on the show. Just that the turbines are an eyesore to neighbors. Go figure!

They sit right in the middle of a major migration route for birds, especially hawks. And they wipe out thousands of birds every year.

But I am sure hugger is fine with that.
Posted by: otter at April 21, 2008 5:24 AM

Properly sited, today’s wind farms seem to present much less danger to bird populations. Nevertheless, studies show that in the U.S., turbines kill between 40,000 and 70,000 birds per year. However, these numbers must be put into perspective with the generally far greater hazards posed by land clearing due to residential sprawl, road traffic, large buildings, power lines, traffic, hunting and agricultural pesticides, which together account for billions of bird deaths annually. One study estimates that each year 57 million birds are killed by cars and 97.5 million by collisions with plate glass. Domestic cats are reported to be responsible for the demise of hundreds of millions of songbirds and other species every year. The numbers must also be compared to the dangers from other forms of energy generation – for instance, the Exxon Valdez oil spill alone is estimated to have killed between 375,000 and 500,000 birds.

In other parts of the world, where the wind industry is better developed, the research is relatively positive. Danish radar research, for instance, shows that most birds tend to change their flight route some 100 to 200 meters (109 to 219 yards) before they arrive at a turbine, passing above at a safe distance, research that has been confirmed at several Australian wind farms. One of the more comprehensive pieces of research is the eight-year Danish Offshore Wind Study on Key Environmental Issues, which looked at pre-construction and post-construction data on the effects of off-shore wind farms on birds, marine mammals, fish and the people living in neighboring coastal communities. It found that there were virtually no negative impacts of the offshore wind farms to birds, and noted that tagged birds altered their flight paths around the turbines.

Hugger

Oh -- a company was installing a wind generator to supplement electric power at our local senior citizens housing project. We are finally going green and the lefties were in all their glory! They took about $10,000.00 USD as a down payment three years ago and we just can't seem to find them anymore! Go figure!

Can’t give you any references as to current conditions. The wind generation conditions at the time of involvement, were such as described.
The wind generation is not so much as a primary source as an auxiliary source. However you look at it, as long as it is not sucking in the tax money, it really does not matter how, where who and what about this and what about that.

Hugger,

I don't have time this morning to fully address this, but let's start with the batteries. You're either an ignoramus or a liar. Look back at the "electromotive series". Every possible battery is on that list -- pick two substances and use them. (Fuel cells, too. At that level the difference is a matter of nomenclature.) That list is public knowledge and has been for a century and a half, about; anybody at all is free to pick a battery chemistry and implement it. Even you. Go get rich; the data is before you.

The "wonderful improvements" in battery technology come from people trying to implement a particular combination. For instance, lithium batteries (actually lithium-oxygen) operate at 10% to about 40% of theoretical capability, because their builders (somewhat understandably) prefer for the things not to explode. The notion that geeks don't need their genitals is a demeaning stereotype, and having laptop batteries blow up randomly would be somewhat objectionable. Even with the precautions they take, errors happen -- vide the recent spate of recalls because of them burning up.

Nanotechnology, in particular, offers the exciting prospect of actually realizing something close to the full potential of various battery technologies, by isolating the active materials in structures that allow electron flow without exposing them to the outside world. They're still on The List, because The List is what there is; there ain't anything else.

Briefly: What was the sea level in the Bay of Bengal in the year 900 CE, when Leif Ericsson's customers were growing barley in Greenland, wine-grapes were grown in Thuringia, the Chaco Canyon and Angkor Wat cultures thrived, and it was possible to paddle a canoe from Baffin Bay to the Bering Strait three months out of the year? Was the present site of Dhaka under water? Show your sources.

Regards,
Ric

"Did you check the price of gas lately? Better still, the price of diesel. The stuff all those 18 wheelers run on. Diesel is a byproduct in the process of refining gasoline is it not? In other words, if you are going to make gas, you get diesel whether you want it or not. So why is it in the $1.40 per litre range? The only justification I've heard is that they can only make so much and all those nasty people buying Jetta's and such are at fault. Must punish and deter them."

No, Hugger, that's not correct. Fuel is produced through fractionation at refineries depending upon the desired product. There are a host of reasons why gasoline and diesel prices are high which have nothing to do with the price fixing you hint at. Do you imagine that refineries can be switched over immediately to produce different fuel types? So, if we start producing more diesel, who makes up the shortfall in gasoline?

1. About a quarter of Nigeria's crude oil production has been lost over the past few months primarily because of attacks on the infrastructure.

2. Refining capacity has not kept pace with growth in demand for vehicle fuel. As a result, there's little spare capacity margin to allow for plant outages. This is a long term problem which has grown steadily worse over the past 25 years. Mostly it's the result of relentless opposition to new refining capacity.

3. Making both of the above worse, there's not one single grade of regular gasoline in the US, there's dozens of them. Gasoline octane and additive contents are regulated at the state level. As a result, refineries have to make dozens of what are essentially boutique grades of gasoline to supply their markets. This makes for a highly fragile supply system in which the effect of any interruption is magnified.

4. There has been a large increase in demand for diesel vehicles over the past year. Given the no significant increase in refining capacity and little redundant capacity within the refining industry, that adds up to a fuel shortage, as manifested by the rising price.

Boone Pickens, a self made billionaire, is considered one of the sharpest minds in the oil industry. He knows the business of energy as well as anyone, and he is putting billions of dollars into wind energy. What does that say about it?

Photo-voltaics will work financially in markets where KwH consumption charges vary during the day. Third party financing is making this possible, amortized over 25 years.

Local generation of power by a fuel cell should have been the answer. Carrier Corp had a working model, yet it has disappeared from the market.

Imagine if every new home had a fuel cell running on natural gas? Heat and power for the home, plus excess power to the grid.

OTOH if the Inuit went back to their tradiational ways, burning whale oil for light/heat, then the polar bears would be saved from electro-diesel plants running 24x7, for sattelite TV, etc.

Take every car in the world, now visualise that many windmills. Even on that scale it would only make a dent in "replacing fossil fuels"

I get a kick out of all the wind power experts.They have never lived a day relying on the wind for power.I have.On the prairies before the electrical grids were constructed,there were hundreds of farms with wind mills and wind chargers to pump water and supply electricity.Every one had an engine backup for to pump water and another for electricity.Also a battery backup system.You shut the light off when leaving a room.No one had air conditioning.No one had a heating system that relied on electricity.No one had a car heater or a block heater.No one had an electric dryer.No one had an electric water heater.Some had an electric washing machine that was used once a week but the engine generater had to run if an electric motor of any kind was in use.Batteries were only good to run lights and wind chargers were ONLY good enough to charge batteries.ONLY THE MORE WELL OFF FARMERS HAD THESE SYSTEMS! THEY COST TOO MUCH FOR POOR FARMERS!

Boone Pickens, a self made billionaire, is considered one of the sharpest minds in the oil industry. He knows the business of energy as well as anyone, and he is putting billions of dollars into wind energy. What does that say about it?

Local generation of power by a fuel cell should have been the answer. Carrier Corp had a working model, yet it has disappeared from the market.

Regards,
Ric

To address Mr. Locke's contention that only lead is available in sufficient quantities to fulfill commercial battery requirements, here is some food for thought.

The main component in the new technology being developed by EESTOR is barium-titanate powders. This is a common component of capacitors. Perhaps some of the people involved in the Engineering, Scientific or manufacturing communities would offer some insight as to the availability of this product? From what I can tell, the components are commonly available and used in such things as paint and fertilizers.

Lockheed Martin are interested enough in the technology to pursue its use. Specifically the EESUs units that EESTOR are developing. Also, ZENN car manufacturing here in Canada are awaiting shipment of the batteries later this year to be used in their Electric cars.

As for your input today Mr. Locke, I did provide sources on rising water levels on a recent blog. Go look. I remember your input about how much oil it takes to make a blade for wind turbine and your assessment. How much natural gas does it take to produce a barrel of oil from the Alberta tar sands, and how much fresh water does it take, and what happens to the contaminate??

Hugger

I don't have time this morning to fully address this, but let's start with the batteries. You're either an ignoramus or a liar.

Posted by: Ric Locke at April 21, 2008 10:02 AM

Apparently Sir, you have mistaken me for someone who cares what you think. As I said to you a couple of days ago, in response to that post of yours which is HEADLINED above, you sound like the typical denier.

Hugger

Properly sited, today’s wind farms seem to present much less danger to bird populations - Hugger

Ahh, the 'ol "I know you are but what am I" argument augmented by the low grade slur of "big oil's useful idiots' line.

Aside from bad logic and ad hominem - Hugger - you are naive and ideological.

Wind is flakey. It doesn't always blow. When you have a ventilator at a hospital, a traffic light, or any other power sink that is critical to our society, it cannot be succeptible to megavar degradation or amp drop.

Aside from selective peak shaving - generation from wind is near useless outside of servicing a single house/complex.

They are a blight on the landscape, destroy migratory bird patterns, and are simply a bad excuse to wrap one's lips around the taxpayors wallets - all in the name of helping humanity. Your arguments are driven by ideology - not rationality.

The real issue underlying Suzuki/Gore/Tree-hugging eco nuts isn't climate change/emissions/societal waste - it's an ideology that is at odds with contemporary western society.

And that's cool. I believe in reducing our society's energy footprint. I believe in creating less waste - toxic and otherwise. But these idological whackjobs push their cash creating agenda with lies, half-truths, and scare tactics that do not reflect fact.

Analogously, clinging to a generation form that is not simply less than ideal - but injurious to surroundings for a marginal benefit (I state there is none) - is simply delusional.

Embrace your cognitive dissonance, and grow as a person.

The more one strays from fact in trying to sell a philosophy - the harder the fall when everyone catches up.

I am convinced that guys like the Fruit Fly and the Gore-ackle have done more harm to the environmental movement than can be quantified. Because Joe and Jane Canuck will realize the lies they've been peddled, and will be less inclined to listen in the future. Try googling 'boy who cried wolf'.

Apparently Sir, you have mistaken me for someone who cares what you think.

MSDS for barium. Highlights: We don't know the effects in people of ingesting low levels of barium over the long term. Animal studies have found increased blood pressure and changes in the heart from ingesting barium over a long time. We don't know the effects of barium from breathing it or from touching it. Apparently you're all about invoking the Precautionary Principle to justify massive intrusion into people's lifestyles and energy-use choices, but as regards spraying toxic chemicals around the ecosphere, not so much, eh?

Regards,
Ric

How come we're told we must recycle because we have no more room to dump garbage but we can allocate large tracts of land to windmills?

"Do you imagine that refineries can be switched over immediately to produce different fuel types? So, if we start producing more diesel, who makes up the shortfall in gasoline?"

cgh at April 21, 2008 10:09 AM

What I know, and am not imagining is that in our small market area there used to be 5 refineries, and now there are two. This in spite of tremendous increase in usage over the past two decades when this transpired. What I know and am not imagining is that one of those refineries was built at tax payer expense, and when it became idle due to market forces etc. the government of Canada refused to lease it to an individual who had the background, and ability to make it work. But the big players in the industry didn't want that nasty little dog nipping at their heels. I also know the refinery ended up being sold for scrap price to an American company who removed it.

1. Opec says there is no shortfall. I read that last week.

2. Addressed above.

3. Gasoline additives are added after the refining process, no? Additionally, are you old enough to remember paying for something that wasn't added to fuel anymore?

4. Addressed above re: refining capacity and another thing, when the genius' in Ottawa were busy gutting the Railway back in the late 80's and early 90's, I says to meself, self, they are going to be sorry. Are you contending, as I mentioned that it's the increase in Jetta's etc. that is making the difference?

Lastly, in refining are you referring to straight run or catalytic cracking capability?

Hugger

There are a lot of aspects of this that, for me, fall into the category of "hilarious if they weren't dangerous", and the biggest one is foot-shooting amongst the proponents.

University professors, "Human Rights Commissions", extensive bureaucracies for minor matters, and the like are examples of conspicuous consumption. Wealthy economies can maintain them out of pocket change; less-wealthy ones struggle to keep at least a symbolic number around to maintain the appearance of keeping up with the Joneses. They are the SUVs of sociopolitics, of some limited real utility but mostly just "bling".

So what happens if they get their way? A Canada or a United States that was getting by on a couple of KW per citizen would not have anything like the resources to maintain them in the lifestyle they've become accustomed to. I can pretty well guarantee that when the choice comes down to funding the Premier's bar bill or the Womyn's Studies Department, it'll be the barmaids that squeak through.

Oh, and Boone Pickens was mentioned above. Recall the old saying "A fool and his money is soon parted"? There is a philosophy that extends that idea to a moral imperative: "It is morally reprehensible to allow a fool to keep his money." T. Boone Pickens is among the foremost advocates of that concept, and has gotten really really rich applying it. He avoids criticism of his business practices, even among capitalists, by making that obvious. If Pickens thinks he can make money off something you're doing you need to have a really serious re-think.

Regards,
Ric

Thanks Ric Locke ...

I am supporter of alternative energy development and I agree that ALL you points are valid!
I would however argue that at some point the cost of producing the wind generated electricity becomes less than the use of alternatives.
I'd also argue that in order to get to that point sooner rather than later it is necessary to have development take place. Thus I see every installation as a pilot project and learning opportunity that is in the long run going to be beneficial. Even if it means that wind power will be rejected in favour of other developments.

BTW - it does not matter in the least if there are power losses in the wind generator. What does matter is the consistency and the total life span or reliability.

Cheers!

Ric Locke at April 21, 2008 11:41 AM

The position you so strenuously put forth was based on availability of necessary resources to support wide scale production of alternative battery technology, not health concerns. Am I to assume you are also an expert in Medicine as well as your previously stated qualifications?

So, answer the question if you can. What's all that Waaaaha stuff? Step on your dick?

Hugger

Apologies for the spelling .. accidentally hit post instead of preview!!!

I'm for anything that will eliminate ME, especially Saudi oil revenues.

Germany has the largest wind installation. It is running on average at 18% efficiency. It needs to be at 30%. I guess they're still working on how to get the wind to cooperate.

Clean coal, despite what the leftards say, is still very viable, especially with the scrubbers and C02 sequestering technology. Properly retrofit, coal plants can burn everything from hay to garbage pellets as well. North America has a 250 year supply of coal.

Nuclear is zero C02 emissions.

Transportation is anybody's guess right now. But, as I said, I'm all for anything that ends foreign, especially Saudi oil dependence. Finding an alternative fuel solution might have been a smarter place to put at least some of the trillions spent on the Iraq war.

As it is we are fighting and at the same time funding Islamic conquest and terrorism.

Last Sunday I mowed the lawn. Today Nanook is home from school because the busses aren't running. I'll be digging out the snowblower a little later today.

Praise the Lord and pass the global warming please.

BTW - it does not matter in the least if there are power losses in the wind generator. What does matter is the consistency and the total life span or reliability.
Posted by: OMMAG at April 21, 2008 12:10 PM

The last word you use is the most critical OMMAG - reliability in power terms is either on, or off. Yes, or no.

Wind is variable, and not reliable. Anywhere.

And that's why business needs big handouts from taxpayers - because no business model would be able to attract significant capital to engage a random payback profile.

Some trading and hedging can mitigate, but not chnage this fact.

Nuke is the way.

"it's an ideology that is at odds with contemporary western society."

hardboiled at April 21, 2008 11:39 AM

You forgot to add that it's a conspiracy too. Must be them damn Europeans. I believe they even use garbage and human waste to generate electricity. They invented sausages too. Look how well that's done. Someone even converted it to a wiener...

Gronk say, rock roll down hill..ugh.

I believe recognizing problems within western society and making reasonable efforts to address them is more accurate.

Hugger.

Clean coal, despite what the leftards say, is still very viable, especially with the scrubbers and C02 sequestering technology. Properly retrofit, coal plants can burn everything from hay to garbage pellets as well. North America has a 250 year supply of coal.

Posted by: irwin daisy at April 21, 2008 12:16 PM

I wonder if there ever would have been incentive to invent and develop the scrubbers etc. if it weren't for the yowling of the leftards, suzukibots and all those who ya'll hold in such distain? Ponder Ponder.

Hugger

Greg:

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Separating truly new innovative technology from perpetual motion scams has always been one of mankinds greats feats.

In this regard, as Ric Locke points out so well, we are no further ahead today than in the stone age. Why ?

Simple. Because we have Schools of higher Edumbcation and Popular Science Magazines and United Nations bureaucrats and Tenure for Teachers and Political advisers (think WK) and taxpayer subsidies for windmills and on and on.

But, I believe what is most responsible for our 'off on a tangent ways' is because of our beloved Media 'Dumbing-Down' the information and news.

The wacky, 'big-idea' could be exposed in months, if not weeks, by a Media more interested in fact than calamity.

Remains to be seen, but it looks like Biofuels have gone from Saviour to Villain in a matter of months. Why so fast ? I would suggest, because the likes of Greenpeace, The United Nations, WFO and other friends of the MSM have turned against Biofuels.

Not only turned against, but a 180 degree turn. After all, it was their idea in the first place.

The idea ? To snuff out oil's dominance. What did the Greens (the fanatical ones, that is) achieve ? A few things. Among them;

At $117 a barrel, oil is king now (the Green's drilling restrictions slowed down new discoveries)

Food is more expensive because the Green's burnt a quarter of the US corn crop.

Windpower induced blackouts.

Higher energy costs for all. Higher cost for everything we buy, because everything requires energy. Everything.

All in the name of trying to make the world colder -- requiring more energy to stay alive. Sigh.

I always get a chuckle reading the different solutions to world energy/fossil fuel usage. They all sound like the "intelligent" portion of a beauty pagent: "... help orphans and cure world hunger."

Fact is there is no one single answer. Wind mills are interesting and around here the source of much tinkering by local geeks (and I say geeks in the good sense). To paraphrase a quote: If you build it they will come (and try to make it bigger, smaller, better or cheaper). Ingenuity and creativity has brought us out of the trees and through the stone age to being able to split atoms. Maybe someday someone will drop their energy peanut butter into someone else's energy chocolate and a true breakthrough will occour. Until then it is an inventor's free for all out there so have atter, eh.

One small item I would like to point out though is that if wind power is the answer to all our ills then why are all the windmills on these wind farms not all going? I've been to the Crowsnest many times along with the farms in California's Sacramento Valley and even in Texas and never have I seen all mills spinning at once or even 90% of them.

I hope to buy some land here in Nova Scotia soon and after building a home I will probably try my hand at building a windmill just to tinker with but it most likely won't power my home. It will be enough to run my dilithium crystal mine though ;-)

Wind is flakey. It doesn't always blow.

hardboiled at April 21, 2008 11:39 AM

Further to the above, you seem to miss the core issues of supplemental power and the infancy of the industry. Do try to keep up please. I don't have time to keep repeating myself and respond to most of the deniers.

Hugger

"Solar power is the next best thing to useless in Canada; your sun angle isn't high enough"

Ever hear of a tilt mount?

"You're either an ignoramus or a liar. Look back at the "electromotive series". Every possible battery is on that list -- pick two substances and use them"

Ever hear of Vanadium? Check vanadium redox batteries - they are presently testing VRB batteries at a 38 MW Irish wind farm.
http://www.vrbpower.com/docs/news/2006/20060830%20-%20PR%20-%20Tapbury%20Sale%20-%20Ireland%20Windfarm.pdf

Wind projects in Canada are fully viable, there is no more wind subsidy (other than the small Standard Offer Contract program in Ontario).

It will be enough to run my dilithium crystal mine though ;-)
Posted by: Texas Canuck at April 21, 2008 12:39 PM

We must always be cognizant of the warp core..

Once upon a time, in a garage somewhere in the US of A, two fellows named Bill Gates and Paul Allen began a little something now known as Microsoft. Rumor has it, much to the displeasure of the resident king of the hill at the time, IBM.

Hugger

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Posted by: set you free at April 21, 2008 12:34 PM

Yes.

Hugger

Posted by: ron in kelowna at April 21, 2008 12:38 PM

Unintended consequences are a bitch, aren't they?

It brings to mind an old proverb: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Whether you're talking about Human Rights Commissions or how environmentalism is leading to international social disorder, the wisdom of that proverb remains timeless.

We're just living in a different time and playing out issues on a different stage than our ancestors did.

Oh, I forgot. Our utopians have ‘evolved' us into a higher species through ‘natural selection' techniques based on the premise of ‘survival of the fittest.'

When the fittest utopians seize the levers of power of the state, it sets the stage for their vision of a ‘final solution.'

And, we all know how well that turns out, don't we?

Further to the above, you seem to miss the core issues of supplemental power and the infancy of the industry. Do try to keep up please. I don't have time to keep repeating myself and respond to most of the deniers.
Hugger

Hey Huggies - do try and keep up. Suggestions about reduction in waste and energy consumption are at odds with contemporary western society - inasmuch as this is a society built upon the premise of 4% growth in the economy each year. That paradigm nees to change. Not fearmongering without fact. I believe eco-whackjobs have set back improvements to that paradigm more than any other single vector over the past 2 years. This will expand as knowledge, not fear and loathing, become known.

And yeah genius - wind don't always blow. That means no baseload. Which means useless. It doesn't matter if you get a 4% reduction in peak power consumption if you require 15 sections of land to generate 80MW of variable rate power.

Life cycle that technology genius.

Current (useful) research is on capturing deep water tidal energy, or high efficiency combustion of pine-beetle killed trees is not only viable - but in production. Both superior, maybe even to a 'blowhard'. And hey - since your talking supplemental power, wind ain't useful for spinning or required reserves - why is it the most expensive generation form for the least valuable service?

Because it isn't economic. Even when compared to existing generation forms.

Focusing on numeracy would help you out alot. You have the wistful gaia feel going good. Being able to operate a calculator will really round yourself out.

JohnB @ 12:43. Don't be stupid. Tiltmounts have no effect whatsoever and cannot compensate for latitude. We live on an oblate sphere, remember, not a flat earth the way so many of you greenies seem to think.

Greg @ 11:59: 1. Glad you believe in the spoutings of OPEC. You do understand the difference between OPEC and the oil companies? 2. Actually you didn't address it above, which is why I had to, not forgetting the point that part of the reason for a shortage of refining capacity is the opposition of you greenies. 3. Irrelevant. It adds up to a fuel shortage because of a great variety of gasolines that have to be produced. You don't just open a tank and dump in a few buckets of additives. 4. And yes, it is the increase in diesel Jettas, and a host of other vehicles including trucks which have produced a global surge in the demand for diesel over the past year or so.

As for your 12:40 comment, your statement about the infancy of the industry is laughable. Wind has been harnessed in a variety of forms for a variety of uses for thousands of years. There is probably no form of energy in which we are more fully cognizant of than wind, both its advantages and its weakness. Pretending that some great breakthrough is coming is simply absurd.

Wind turbines driving resistors? Sorry, the guy who wrote the article hasn't a clue what he's talking about. There are no 'resistors' in the power grid that soak up excess power. If the wind blows, other power plants reduce their output. If the wind doesn't blow, the other power plants increase their output. Electrical power geeks can read about AGC and frequency control if they're interested.

JohnB: further to your 12:43 comment on wind subsidies. The Ontario government provides three additional subsidies to wind generation: corporate sales tax rebate on all building materials; 100 per cent tax writeoff for the cost of newly acquired assets; and capital tax exemption for newly acquired assets. By the way, the Standard Purchase Offer of 11 cents is a large subsidy, not a small one, in light of what conventional baseload power production costs are in Ontario from nuclear and hydro or even coal if it was fully scrubbed.

hardboiled at April 21, 2008 1:36 PM

Well calculate this up.

"The NEW WIND FARMS INSTALLED IN 2001, AWEA said, will produce as much electricity annually as 475,000 average American households use, and will displace emissions of three million tons of carbon dioxide (the leading greenhouse gas) and more than 27,000 tons of noxious air pollutants each year.

"Wind is well on its way to providing six percent of our nation's electricity (US)--as much as 25 million households use annually-

While the wind industry rewrote the record books, prospects for a repeat in
2002 have been thrown into doubt by the expiration of a key incentive, the federal wind production tax credit (PTC), which expired December 31 and was not renewed by Congress, due to a partisan battle over economic stimulus legislation. Bills to renew the PTC had strong support in both the House of Representatives and Senate, AWEA said, but were left unpassed when negotiations between the two parties on the economic legislation (which included the PTC extension) broke down shortly before Christmas."

Co-incidentally, this tax credit ended only once George (Texas Oil)Bush became Pres. Also consider that tax credits are generally only useful if you have profit to write them off against.

You have a problem understanding supplemental and new technology do you? And the least for the most is as shallow an argument as I've heard yet. You do understand about set up costs yes? How long have your oil god's been at it and how long has the wind industry been going? And remember the price of a VCR when they first came out? Do I need to explain that to you? A new calculator for the mathematician perhaps?

Oh, and $117 a barrel and rising. Long term pain for the oil industries long term gain. Thank you Mr. Crosbie.

Your 15 sections reference gave you away btw, Ralph. Kind of depends on what the "sections" were being used for previously doesn't it? Speaking of Ralph, has he attended Danny Williams school of business for aspiring oil tycoons yet?

About pine beetles, maybe youse westerners could learn to make pie with them. I suggest Humble Pie.

Hugger

CO2 the leading greenhouse gas? I thought water vapor or methane was had more of a greenhouse affect than CO2;

You are correct -- CO2 is insignifigant as a GH gas.

But CO2 is essential for life on earth. Plants live on CO2. We live on plants.

Your 15 sections reference gave you away btw, Ralph. Kind of depends on what the "sections" were being used for previously doesn't it?

Well now - nothing like turning 15 sections of land into a forest of visual blight. It might be a reasonable proposition to yourself to put up migratory bird choppers and turn once empty (dare I say, natural?) land into noise generating blights for un-economic power generation.

It's a poor economic and social choice Huggy, when compared with alternative generation forms. Moreso - effort towards reducing power consumption by 4% are a far better use of resources, rather than shilling for welfare cases pretending to be businessmen.

But, since power is regional bub - that 6% your fluff piece promotes is naturally localized. Guess that distributes reliance upon existing and incremental generation benefits asymmetically.

Better stop there. That's a pretty big pill you'll need to swallow if you get your head around that.

Don't let fact get in the way of reality. And stick to consuming eco-fluff - the world's a difficult place for one who is selectively ignorant.

BTW - generation from beetle fired plants now exceeds wind generation in AB & BC. And hey - it can even be sold into the reserves market.

What d'ya know?

Hugger: "Wind is well on its way to providing six percent of our nation's electricity (US)--as much as 25 million households use annually-

Using numbers from the Edision Electric Institute the US has ~1067 GW installed nameplate capacity. Wind constitutes 17GW of that total, ~1.6%. Measured at the KWH meter, where it really counts, wind accounts for ~0.4% of the overall generation. The difference comes from the variable nature of the fuel source. Is 0.4 well on the way to 6?

Here in the Pacific Northwest we are blessed with an abundance of hydro that we have so far used as pumped storage to offset the variable nature of windgeneration. We have now nearly reached the limits of how far we can game hydro to offset the variable nature of wind, and must consider adding additional thermal resources to compensate. Who pays for expanded grid reserve generation requirements necessary to augment variable generation sources such as wind?

From a siting perspective the first windfarms snatched up the choice locations. Future sites will have to deal with the issues of of transmission costs to get from locations remote from the grid and/or lower average wind speed. Given that wind already requires tax subsidization to be cost competitive in choice locations, who will pay for the additional cost of building in less than choice locations?

Windpower is trendy now days, but it will not take us nearly as far as some suggest.

Posted by: TerryH at April 21, 2008 3:08 PM

It is reassuring to see so many people so knowledgeable about power.

And reassuring there is alot who actually strive to create a useful dialogue around the choices that will - inevitably - need to be made.

Did you know that wind turbines actually need electricity to start them turning?

Please stop picking on Huggy, gals/guys. The poor guy has resorted to ad hominens(again). Calling you deniers,ESPECIALLY after you disprove his little spouts. Again, I beg you stop. We wouldn't want his mommy hearing him crying in her basement.
And BTW Richard. The windy mills in the netherlands where primarily used for turning stones to grind flour. Or are you saying the Dutch had electricity before anybody else?

cgh at April 21, 2008 2:11 PM

Well much of what you say is perspective, such as the infancy of the industry. I'm talking currently used technologies which have only been coming into their own recently. Not windmills from past centuries in Holland. Also, so much is market driven and this greatly hinders R&R.

The largest increase in Diesel use in recent years comes from the fact that we as a society are moving goods from all over hell's half acre to mass storage, processing and point of sale. The average item on the grocers shelf travels 1500 klms. Like someone wrote recently, why is it whenever they go to buy a can of fish it comes from China or Thailand? No fish in Canada??I bought frozen pizzas yesterday on the East coast that came from Minnesota. etc. etc.

Then there is how we move these goods. Mostly trucking. These are the results of profit driven, globalist economics trumping local grown, local marketed. This is partly why I advocate anything that can be done locally and small scale as well as large scale.

On Opec, I believe it does what's good for the industry. Theirs. Like all the rest of that industry. A little supposed shortage provides excuse for increases in pricing.

The single largest reason for reduction in refining capability was reinvestment in infrastructure, amalgamations and modernization. Corporate downsizing doesn't just apply to staff. It applies wherever the knife will cut. I also wonder about where they go next? Is the industry gradually investing in alternatives? I never said they were stupid people. Vicious and sleazy, yes, stupid no.

On the additives, a good many are in fact added after refining. Some go into the individual tanks on the tanker trucks just prior to delivery to POS.

You didn't answer my question about paying for something that wasn't added, nor the issue of refining technologies and thus diesel production.

Also, I'm not necessarily suggesting a great breakthrough is imminent. Although neither you nor I know that for sure do we? I'm referring more to improvement in what is being used currently. Liken it to an automobile if you will. Still running on 4 rubber tires with petroleum for fuel for the most part, just like the Model T.

I have to go do some things, but I will look back later for a response.

Hugger

Justthinkin at April 21, 2008 3:30 PM

Gee, that was real mature.

Huggybuns

Hugger @ 3:36: The question is, does the gasoline have to be configured for the additives? Yes it does. Your comments about shipments are only a small part of the picture. We've been shipping food long distances for years. What's new is additional demands placed on diesel that did not previously exist, mostly in the form of cars.

No OPEC doesn't do what's best for the industry; it does what's best for OPEC, namely the Persian Gulf oil supply nations. The two interests have almost nothing in common. OPEC wants to drive up the overall revenue take from the sale of crude oil. The oil industry wants it lower for fairly obvious reasons. Over the past 30 years, the oil industry generally succeeded in this, as non-OPEC oil became a larger portion of total global supply.

"Vicious and sleazy, yes, stupid no."

There's about 200,000 people in Canada alone who would quite readily debate with you about that. Most of them would quite willingly suggest that if you don't like our product or our industry, stop buying it.

"Still running on 4 rubber tires with petroleum for fuel for the most part, just like the Model T."

And how long did it take us to get rid of paper in our modern electronic age? Oh yes, and we're using more printing paper than ever now. Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.

That's a pretty big pill you'll need to swallow if you get your head around that.

hardboiled at April 21, 2008 3:02 PM

Commercial energy production from woody biomass is receiving considerable attention due to a host of factors. Demand-side drivers include upward pressure on the cost of traditional energy sources and an increased awareness of the negative effects of generating energy from these traditional (commercial) sources. On the supply side, woody biomass sources are increasing as a result of insect outbreak, fires or measures to minimize the risk of such events. Except in special cases, biomass energy technologies still cost more than energy production from fossil fuels, necessitating regulatory or economic instruments to increase their adoption. Following a general analysis of the drivers and instruments to facilitate bioenergy uptake we examine the economic issues associated with bioenergy production resulting from the mountain
pine beetle outbreak in the British Columbia interior.

Umm, Eggy...anything else?

Soo..What's your projection on the time frame the beetle infested pine will be available for? How long will the wind blow?

I do have to go. Picking willnots would be more entertaining than this.

Hugger

Quite the raging rant on all sides of the argument.

No one ever pretended that the Tesla was any everyday answer.

There are thousands of electric cars running around Europe and the US today. Norway*s Think car is only one example. Truck fleets too. They beat the London Blue zone traffic fees.

Think = 100KPH and 185 K travel range. Good for all those who commute less than 90k per day. The majority.= TG

"Justthinkin at April 21, 2008 3:30 PM

Gee, that was real mature."

"I do have to go. Picking willnots would be more entertaining than this."

Pot kettle thing come to mind.

Once upon a time, in a garage somewhere in the US of A, two fellows named Bill Gates and Paul Allen began a little something now known as Microsoft. Rumor has it, much to the displeasure of the resident king of the hill at the time, IBM.

Greg,
What is in that cool aid? IBM Management could not get their own engineers (phd's) to produce DOS in the existing Memory & floppy Disk size (540). IBM Engineering refused to do Mickey Mouse shit.

It was IBM that outsourced DOS 1.0 to Gates. His father had the business sense to lock up the Contract for DOS. IBM made Gates.

BTW: The east coast high water mark in NJ starts 50 miles inland. It’s called the Piney's (sp) sand dunes & pigmy pines. They even have a Jersey Devil living in the piney's (sp)

The Shore losses its sand with every storm, and the State keeps replenishing... They do have a Coney Island white fish problem that needs fixing.

Soo..What's your projection on the time frame the beetle infested pine will be available for? How long will the wind blow?

You missed the point bub. Let's try again. Guess that distributes reliance upon existing and incremental generation benefits asymmetically.

The point is market distortion. The point is described well by Terry H above. The point is - that structurally, government makes people better and worse off by legislation. There is no 'bigger pie' creation from government. Only redistribution. By force.

In the case of power, generation is localized (to whatever extent). By subsidizing wind power - government is forcibly taking from one, and giving to another.

In this case, forcibly subsidizing an unreliable generation source that is inferior to alternative technologies. All for optics.

Sounds alot like CO2 taxing. And the (newly renamed!) 'climate change' crowd. All very meaningless but for show value. No substantive nor market driven solution in sight. Because the absence of a price signal distorts. Sound familiar? Maybe why so much shipping by truck exists?

The bottom of it - is that we do not pay the full cost of energy. Only marginal cost. And THAT is the fundamental point that wishful and selectively ignorant people ignore. Because, like every 5 year old on Christmas morning, guys like you desperately need to see a present there under the tree. And that magical sprinkle of salvation is just that close if people would only listen to you.

The alternative is to acknowledge these challenges are further away than a trendy (and in general, useless) technology. And it also demands more knowledge and respect to others, as opposed to some sophmoric lecturing that sounds better suited to a self-righteous 2nd year university student.

And pulling a quote from a Canada Forest Service site? C'mon. You didn't even cite it. "F" for that.

http://bookstore.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/Catalog_e.php?catalog=26537

Hugger~ in regards to your comment that sea levels are rising, Let's take Tuvalu for an example:

A tide gauge to measure sea level has been in existence at Tuvalu since 1977, run by the University of Hawaii It showed a negligible increase of only 0.07 mm per year over two decades It fell three millimeters between 1995 and 1999. The complete record can still be seen on John Daly's website: http://www.john-daly.com>www.john-daly.com Obviously this could not be tolerated, so the gauge was closed in 1999 and a new, more modern tide gauge was set up by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology's National Tidal Center by Flinders University at Adelaide. But Tuvalu refuses to submit to political pressure. The sea level has actually fallen since then.

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=1

Since instrumentation was installed in 1993 on Tuvalu's main island Funafuti, sea level has shown no discernible trend. There is some inundation evident on islands in Tuvalu, but global warming is not the cause.

It is the result of erosion, sand mining and construction projects causing an inflow of sea water.

Other factors are also involved.

Excessive use of freshwater for irrigation also causes destruction of underground freshwater reservoirs. A consequence is seawater encroachment into vegetable growing pits is occurring, but is not due to sea level rise.

Part of the problem is related also to the paving of the roads and the runway on Funafuti.

According to estimates, about one quarter of the island ,,,

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10498927

BTW, I have been to Ocean City, Maryland, several times in the past 30 years. The cities' streets are below sea level. Other than that, the island is still there. The beaches are still there. No noticeable sea-level rise. In 30 years of 'agw,' how is this possible?

cgh: "JohnB @ 12:43. Don't be stupid. Tiltmounts have no effect whatsoever and cannot compensate for latitude. We live on an oblate sphere, remember, not a flat earth the way so many of you greenies seem to think."

I believe the original statement made was: "Solar power is the next best thing to useless in Canada; your sun angle isn't high enough"

Really? PV potential for several cities (expressed as kWh/kW installed)

Saskatoon: 1,341 (latitude 52.13N)
Miami: 1,395 (latitude 25N approx.)

Niagara Falls: 1,162 (latitude 43.10N)
Yellowknife, NWT.: 1,109 (latitude 62.47N)
Rankin Inlet, NWT.: 1,147 (latitude 62.82N)

Solar resources as kWh/sq. M per day:

South coastal California (e.g. San Diego, Los Angeles) 5.75 approx.

Regina: 5.0 (7.2 using two axis sun tracking)
Yellownife: 4.0 (6.2 dual axis sun tracking)

https://glfc.cfsnet.nfis.org/mapserver/pv/index.php?NEK=e
http://cetc-varennes.nrcan.gc.ca/fichier.php/codectec/En/2006-046/2006-046_OP-J_411-SOLRES_PV+map.pdf
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-500-2005-072/CEC-500-2005-072-D.PDF

"Don't be stupid. Tiltmounts have no effect whatsoever and cannot compensate for latitude. We live on an oblate sphere, remember, not a flat earth the way so many of you greenies seem to think."

Heh.

Ric good points except your comment about Barium. I view Barium as essentially non-toxic; after all people get quite large amounts of it in swallowing assessments, upper GI series and barium enemas. It's also an ingredient of many glazes. I wouldn't recommend going out and eating barium by the spoonfull, but I also don't recommend ingesting large quantities of other chemicals which are of low toxicity.

cgh at April 21, 2008 3:51 PM

As to OPEC, you did know what I meant didn't you? The Industry being their part of it and the other entity being another arm, yet associated. Both are looking out for their own interests. Collectively expressed as the Industry.

My reference to the Model T should have been clear in that it was a direct reference to how long we use same/similar technologies.

If you had worked in a competitive environment associated with them, you might understand my assessment better. As far as not buying their product, what do you think I am arguing in support of?

And back to number 3 again, you said;

3. Making both of the above worse, there's not one single grade of regular gasoline in the US, there's dozens of them.

Well we do not live in the US, and the high diesel prices I refer to are the ones here in Canada at approx. $1.40 per litre. So what are the dozens of grades of regular gasoline that we have here in Canada? You could mention the dozens they have in the US too. I would be interested.

And again, you didn't answer my questions. Many of you people on this site have a unique way of debating issues.

Again I will ask, in refining are you referring to straight run or catalytic cracking capability?

And, are you old enough to remember paying for something that wasn't added?

Hugger

hardboiled at April 21, 2008 4:49 PM

Listen Eggy, now you are off topic too.

You say, "Sounds alot like CO2 taxing". Who was talking about C02 taxing? You sound like you have gone with the wind. Pun intended.

I mentioned the tax incentives, you talk subsidization. I provide a figure of 6% for whole of the flipping US and you ramble nonsensically. I mention the co-incidence of Bush Oil, you ignore it.

In that one paragraph you seem so offended by, it addresses most of the criticisms you and your ilk have offered in regards wind power. One thing I didn't bother to include was the emissions difference. Your arguments are so trivial I couldn't be bothered to waste any further time on them.

Never addressed which is going to last longer either did you?

So go argue apples are Buicks with someone else.

Hugger

Phillip G. Shaw at April 21, 2008 4:31 PM

Boy, how did you read all of that into what I said? Get a grip Phil. I know about the IBM / Gates relationship. I know about the GUI too. I said look at who was king of hill (IBM) then and who is king of the hill now (Microsoft). Right?

I accept your statement of Gates doing IBM's "Mickey Mouse Shit" as confirmation.

Hugger

You know if they spent all this money on cheap Space travel. We have literaly a whole world with gasoline oceans. All the metal we need. Even a way to dispose of garbage. Fresh water in comets & a frontier for humanity to reach for.

Not to mention all the spin offs from said Program.

I am forcibly reminded of a Chief Petty Officer I worked for thirty-five years ago. He maintained that idiot-proofing was difficult but possible, whereas foolproofing was impossible because what makes a fool is persistence.

Regards,
Ric

Just in from Vancouver: Fraser Valley Latest killing springtime frost since 1911.

Wow ... long thread. Who is my fellow "Precautionary Principle" soul-mate? I have most of the nutbars blocked thanks to killfile ... didn't mean to block you.

I would like to compare my list to yours ... AGW is a given ... "Precautionary Principle" rules!!!! Is that you Samuel? ... love you brother!!!!

A little off topic, sort of; I'm hoping for, and investing in, Alberta nuclear power.
That's the future.

The one thing consistent with bluffers is their penchant for avoiding hard questions and backing up their empty rhetoric.

Hugger

JohnB @ 5:54 pm

Big deal, the kWh still add up to virtually nothing the further north you go. Or perhaps you'd care to explain why the cost of your silly fantasy is 50 cents/kWh. Heh.

As for Hugger, still got nothing to contribute, hah. You two are the prime demonstration of why green fantasies on energy are utterly useless in meeting actual situations and needs.

No you twit we don't live in the US, but even you should be bright enough to understand that we live in an integrated petroleum market in North America. The effects of their regulations on costs affects our costs. Your reference to the Model T is irrelevant. Everything becomes obsolete; the question is, why are you unwilling to admit that your precious wind generation became obsolete a long time ago except for niche applications?

You indeed have a unique way of debating. You offer nothing in support of your contentions, have no understanding of the energy industries you complain about.

But then you're in good company. JohnB has no understanding of basic physics.

Goodbye trolls.

Lev-
"Perhaps you might want to know that coal generating power stations like Sundance, use between 40 -50% of the power generated, to run all the pumps that are used in the cooling system."

I don't know the specs for Sundance, but the max aux power usage (demand) at a typical baseload coal-fired station (600 Mw-1300 Mw) is about 7% with scrubbers and cooling towers. Hard to imagine a coal-fired plant that uses 50% for auxillaries.
Also hard to imagine the transmission system additions that would be required to interconnect sufficient dispersed windfarms to substantially increase their availability factors much above 33-40%. Also, base-load generation has significant time requirements to reduce or increase output. They cannot react quickly enough in sufficent amounts of power to alleviate sudden loss of power from wind. Also, coal and nukes have minimum load levels that they have to maintain to stay in standby mode. Most would take at least 24 hrs to restart.

Mike: Lev, like Hugger and John Bennett of Greenpeace, they just make things up as they go along. The power consumption for thermal plant internals varies between 5 and 10 per cent. Nuclear plants are higher in this range than coal fired plants mostly because of the draw by the main circulation pumps.

cgh at April 22, 2008 10:43 AM

And back to number 3 again, you said;

3. Making both of the above worse, there's not one single grade of regular gasoline in the US, there's dozens of them.

Well we do not live in the US, and the high diesel prices I refer to are the ones here in Canada at approx. $1.40 per litre. So what are the dozens of grades of regular gasoline that we have here in Canada? You could mention the dozens they have in the US too. I would be interested.

And again, you didn't answer my questions. Many of you people on this site have a unique way of debating issues.

Again I will ask, in refining are you referring to straight run or catalytic cracking capability?

And, are you old enough to remember paying for something that wasn't added?

LASTLY; And your answers were?

Dismissed, toadie.

Hugger

Are you even capable of reading? Your questions were answered to the degree that they deserved. Now FOAD.

Hugger,

I don't know about Canada, but down here the mandates for reduced sulfur and particulates in diesel have increased cost of production and reduced capacity. Nothing to do with a conspiracy by "big oil", just a trade off between air quality and price by our government.

"But then you're in good company. JohnB has no understanding of basic physics."

I guess I'm in good company then since my data came from Natural Resources Canada's "Photovoltaic potential and solar resource maps of Canada".

"Or perhaps you'd care to explain why the cost of your silly fantasy is 50 cents/kWh. Heh."

I posted earlier today details on Nanosolar's technology (now in production). Apparently it's awaiting Kate's approval - perhaps it'll show up.

cgh at April 22, 2008 12:51 PM

You shame yourself.

I posted earlier today details on Nanosolar's technology (now in production). Apparently it's awaiting Kate's approval - perhaps it'll show up.
Posted by: John B at April 22, 2008 5:54 PM

Where oh where could it be?

Hugger

Testing the liberal scripture with the facts is always a hoot.