Greg/Hugger,
No doubt you consider yourself reasonable. From here you sound like a hysterical panicked Luddite.So, let’s say it went down half the time, which isn’t going to happen but just say.
If any wind turbine farm was “up” — producing power — half the time anywhere in the world, I can guarantee the owners would be holding news conferences. The availability fraction for a wind turbine is generally held to be thirty percent… in areas where the wind is particularly strong. When somebody in one of those 24,000 homes switches on a light, the control system at the power plant makes an infinitesimal adjustment to the fuel feed. The chance that a corresponding increase in wind will occur at just the right time is so tiny that you’d be far better off betting your whole salary on a single spin of a slot machine.
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. And you know what? — those turbines turn all the time, making just enough power to stabilize them, and that power is thrown away (in heat!) in big resistors because it’s never available when it’s needed, only when the wind blows. You know why they’re there? Because there’s a subsidy, a big one. When money falls from the sky, Texans find their big hats useful. Power generation? It is to laugh. Add up the oil to make the fiberglass blades, the coal to make the steel for the tower and shafts, the natural gas to smelt the copper in the generators, the power to make the silicon in the electronics and the glass and carbon fibers, and and and, the chance that any wind turbine will produce enough net power to pay back the Diesel fuel to truck it to its site and erect it is zero.
As for batteries, your Wright Brothers analogy is crap. The Wright Brothers knew what their problems were: getting enough power from the primitive engines of the time, and control. They worked on those things, and solved them, at least partially — but none of the solutions they arrived at are still in use in aviation! Now, Google “electromotive series”. You will get a list. Pick two substances off it, and you have a battery. The farther apart the two substances are on the list, the better the battery as a power source. BUT (by a curious coincidence) the best candidates for battery electrodes are also highly reactive — for which read, explosive, corrosive, poisonous, or otherwise highly dangerous. Every scientist in the world knows that list exists and how to get access to it. And that’s all there is. Every possible battery in the world is on that list. “New elements” aren’t even credible comic-book material any more. Do you really suppose things haven’t been tried?
And even if you found the wonder battery, you’ve still got to make it, so what you need to do is go back to research: how much is available? The only battery material in the Universe that’s available in quantities large enough to make enough batteries to make a difference is lead. For everything else, you’re looking at anything from triple to a thousand times the current level of mining and refinement, mostly using chemicals that would make any sane EPA bureaucrat’s ears curl. 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!
Solar power is the next best thing to useless in Canada; your sun angle isn’t high enough. Wind power is a toy anywhere; it isn’t dependable, and it’s even more diffuse than solar. Both of them are boondoggles designed to separate you from your tax money and give power to the bureaucrats who “manage” the projects. People who tell you otherwise are lying, and the only thing the numbers they give you establish is that liars can figure.
“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“>http://www.john-daly.com>http://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.