[Mariss Freimanis]

Very cold winter weather is usually the result of a arctic high pressure system descending into the temperate latitudes. These arctic high pressure circulations bring frigid temperatures and calm winds to the inhabited latitudes. The very time you most need energy to heat your house is during weather that makes windmills useless.

Windmills are tried and true 13th century alternate energy sources. We have moved beyond those times 700 years ago when no other alternatives (oil, nuclear) existed. They are ridiculous and ineffectual contraptions.

Mariss

[johyn]

I like the windmill idea, but it wont power as much as the world needs. Progress? Progressive thinking?
I see these all across the fields in Germany. And I wonder just how much do they help for the cost....


How about this one?

[fizzissist]

Giant 7 megawatt sea fan proposed......

Giant 7 megawatt sea fan announced | Watts Up With That?

I like the Roto-Splode Vestas Video!!

[RomanLini]

I never said that wind energy is necessarily better than oil, coal or nuclear. Or AS cost effective. For the record I like all the above energy sources. Coal is great, we have mountain ranges made of it here in Australia.

I initially responded to Infantry11b re his post #7308 where he took the stance "offshore wind won't work because the undersea power cables will kill sealife and be unreliable" (paraphrased)

And I politely and gently tried to bring him up to speed showing a wiki link that undersea power cables are a very old and reliable technology that have been used since before wind power was fashionable.

Then Infantry11b made the statement in #7313 about wind power; "if it was cost effective we would be doing it now."

Where I again hoped to educate his ignorance of the state of wind technology by politely showing the wiki link List of offshore wind farms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia showing 25 large commercial offshore wind power stations, proving that "we ARE doing it now" and also showing the 10 massive wind farms currently under actual construction, and many more proposed. Some of the proposed on-shore wind farms are of very impressive sizes.

Apparently he thinks these massive multi-billion dollar power stations are being built for "research".

I don't mind helping with his apparent ignorance of the current state of wind energy but I draw the line when he started demanding that I comply with answering in the specific way he wants and then he dropped the argument away from the topic to an condescending arrogant tone attacking me personally; "when you get older you will understand that. .. and take a course in debating techniques - it will help."

Besides being ignorant about undersea power cabling and the current state of wind technology he is ignorant of my age (as I am not young!) and apparently ignorant of my debating skills.

Again I will state I never took the stance that wind power is the best thing ever, or that it is the solution to all our problems. I expect wind will only ever be a small percentage of our energy needs. As far as the argument above I was simply addressing the naive question of undersea cabling, showing yes offshore wind stations are proven and common, and yes wind is economically viable in many places as evidenced by the massive investment and exponential growth of the industry.

Mariss-

... Windmills are tried and true 13th century alternate energy sources. We have moved beyond those times 700 years ago when no other alternatives (oil, nuclear) existed. They are ridiculous and ineffectual contraptions.

They are not ineffectual! Ineffectual means "has no effect" or "does not work". The technology has arguably come of age (or is coming of age), they effectively produce a known amount of power per investment dollar and have known maintenance and replacement costs. They work. That is not to say that they are as cost effective as other power sources in every instance. If a country has very cheap coal (like Australia) then wind is not as cost-effective as coal. If a country has no coal and a lot of wind like Denmark the cost effectiveness is many times higher which explains the massive investment in "very effective" wind power stations in that country.

I understand Mariss if your point is that the US should be spending money on other forms of energy plant than wind, and I agree. But to globally state "wind power is ineffectual" is wrong. It has it's place.

[handlewanker]

I would point out that any country using wind technology for their energy needs for production of exports will soon be on the slide to a third world state when they try to compete with other world producers, so do they just die a natural death, shriveling up economically because their goods are twice the price of say China US or India?....or do they just decline to subsistence production and get by on a day to day basis when and if'n the wind blows?

Today we feed the people we have with the means we now have, tomorrow we cull those that are non essentials by declaring that they have violated some ethic we suscribe to and by the rules that decide what weapons we both can use, proceed to reduce their country to a pile of rubble and eliminate as many of their population as we think should go.

This is so very "civilised", and a very "civilised" method to gain territory and possesions for essential needs, but in the end that is what has been happening since the dawn of time, long before windmill technology, the only difference is that now we have so many more non essentials to get rid of and tomorrow that number will have doubled.

This is no joke, the wind from day one has been blowing steadily with the same force more or less, but the Human species has expanded exponentially and now that force is a diminishing asset when divided by the many new mouths to feed.
Ian.

[handlewanker]

I think the problem with a low yield source is distribution.

Not distribution as in power lines to wherever, but to whoever.

It would be feasible for a group of people to club together and install their own windmill, cost of manufacture and maintainence (latest technology design) having been predetermined and applied as a debt to the group per individual, so a 10MW 'mill might serve the needs of a community of say 1,000 people, homes, work groups.... whatever, and that is all that mill can provide for.

If the location is a bad one with little or varying wind prospects, the production of energy for manufacture etc, would probably only serve a group of 500 people, so the cost would be a long term recovery factor.

As in the Automobile manufacture, the mass production would decide on the economic viability for the 'mill as a selling item.

Eventually the 'mills might be supplied as a kit of parts, assembled at zero cost by the work group who will do the installation themselves...."upon their heads be it"...LOL.....which is preferable to a DIY Nuke establisment.

BTW, I hear that the complete Nuclear establisment in Japan will have to be scrapped as it's too dangerous to even repair them, and the no. 4 reactor has Plutonium in it's core....doom doom...
Ian.

[LatheMaster]

I get a majority of my electricity from solor and hydro . Those who live around wind farms get power from that . It is cost effective and it is already being done . Some individuals in Texas have put up windmills in there yards . They already have kits out there for the do it yourselfer . Same with solar .

A co-worker put solar in years ago . He has no storage capacity but sells all he produces and puts it into the grid . He lives in a mountain area that gets real cold and gets snow . His total spent on electricity per year averages $160 total . His bill before the solar ran $250-$400 a month .

Wind , solar and hydro have been used for years and will continue being used for years to come in greater form . Coal will slowly die away . I personaly make pumps and generators for a company in Nevada that produces power from liquified natural gas in a cryogenic state . They supply all the power to all northern nevada . They are used in many states and many countries . One pump we build actually ends up with more natural gas comming out of the pump then what goes into it . That pays for the pump itself . Dont ask me about the science , I just make the parts .

There is also geothermal . We have been using this to create power for many years .

The reason some of your areas still use coal is the populations are wide spread and possibly your ecenomy is depressed and cant support a change . Most metropolitan areas are getting with the times . Im pretty sure lack of motivation , lazyness , scared of change and 'stuck in your ways' are big players in why many state rely on what they already have . That pretty much sums up the automotive industry and why were still using the inefficient internal combustion engine . We havent tried to come up with anything new in 100 yrs . But lets also not forget greed . Its a big factor in those not wanting change .

[fizzissist]

I One pump we build actually ends up with more natural gas comming out of the pump then what goes into it .

Then all we need is more of your pumps, and we'll have all the natural gas we need!!!

(hint: you'll do well to stick with just makin' the parts)

[fizzissist]

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG_7zK8ODGA&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Prof. Dr. Vincent Courtillot Prà¤sentation[/nomedia]

[dynosor]

One pump we build actually ends up with more natural gas comming out of the pump then what goes into it . That pays for the pump itself ...

Isn't this the principle the government operates on that enables it to spend more money than it takes in?

[handlewanker]

Oh ye of little faith.....what Lathemaster said was you get more out of the type of pumps he works on than other pumps, 'cos when you handle natural gas you lose a fair bit in the compression process and this goes to waste......get the picture....no?.....oh well maybe if'n youse reads the post again the penny will drop.

I read an article in a mag at the local waterhole the other day that described a new design of windmill.

The mill consisted of a stack of stator rings that were 2 metres in diam, with a ring magnet rotor in the middle of each one.....the lot standing in the vertical axis like a stack of donuts.....LOL.

There were 100 of these "donut" stator assemblies stacked on top of each other to form a tower, 2 metres in diam and about 50 metres high....all the rotors formed the central shaft and the windmill arms on top rotated horizontally like an anemometer.

A tower even 3 or 4 metres in diam and 100 metres high would have a very stable aspect ratio and the larger the diam would not impact on the towers strength to hold it above the ground as in current windmill designs which have unstable gyroscopic forces waving around on a very slender pole.
Ian.

[LatheMaster]

Then all we need is more of your pumps, and we'll have all the natural gas we need!!!

(hint: you'll do well to stick with just makin' the parts)

Youll do well to learn how to spell fizzissist correctly .

If you want to agrue on this more give Ebara a call and tell them they dont know what there doing . There located in Sparks , Nevada . If your nice they might even show you how to spell your screen name correctly . :banana:

Dynosor has a perfect analogy .

Handlewanker , I did mean what I said . The end result is more gas out than what was put in . It was never intended to work this way . But it sure made a better selling point . Im not a fizzissist so I dont have any answers . Im not the type of person who asks why all the time . Just some of the time .

[fizzissist]

Youll do well to learn how to spell fizzissist correctly .

If you want to agrue on this more give Ebara a call and tell them they dont know what there doing . There located in Sparks , Nevada . If your nice they might even show you how to spell your screen name correctly . :banana:

Never said that Ebara doesn't know what they're doing, though most of my experience is with the Varian breed. Pumps, that is. Vacuum pumps, specifically. Pumps like cryo, diffusion, turbo-molecular, roughing foreline and all that stuff that you need to get into the minus nines. Of course, you know all about that, don't you. LatheMaster has TWO caps in it, and my name is all in lower case, and "mispelled" at that!

Most physicists have the archaic idea that you don't get more out of a pump than what you put in....it's a conservation of mass thing, they seem to think. Maybe you could explain it to them, how you can get more gas out of a pump than you put in, assuming no chemical or physical processes are occurring which modify the molecular structure of the medium passing through the pump. I know some that'll be absolutely fascinated.

I bow to a superior intellect. In fact, I hereby nominate you to have Ad Hominem added to your name. I'd even drive out to Salomon to honor you, but I'd probably get sidetracked by pizza at Grimaldi's on the way.

btw,
"There" located in Sparks, Nevada? Did you mean "They're"??? That's what's called a contraction, something you do in grammar. It is shorter than saying "they are". If "your" nice....? Did you mean "you're", a contraction for "you are"??? Oh darn, the grammar monster again. Must've been covered that day in english class you were out with a "I need to go play laser tag" headache.

[handlewanker]

Never mind LatheMaster, the lab rats are always gnawing at the trivia just to be on the one up bus.

When I worked on the mines we serviced pumps that pumped salt water from the sea, and the glands were allowed to leak to lubricate the stuffing box and not only to keep the shaft cool, but to prevent air getting sucked in past the packing when that pump was shut down.

If the gland was tightened so that there was no water dribbling out you WOULD get more out of the discharge pipe than went in the suction, C O M P A R E D.... to the other makes of pump, but the pump would overheat and burn the packing so leading to failure within hours......which means in a nutshell for Fizzwizz to comprehend..... although you would get more out than went in, it would not last long, so normally that type of pump leaks intentionally, which equates to about a 98% delivery, a sum Fizzwizz is getting his knickers in a twist over.

Depending on how your nat gas pump is sealed at the gland, if it has gland shaft seals, then with a superior sealing system you could well say you get more out in the final count.....(compared to other pumps).

Probably a peristaltic type pump is totally leak proof, so equal equal....whatever.
Ian.

[Robin Hewitt]

Most physicists have the archaic idea that you don't get more out of a pump than what you put in....it's a conservation of mass thing, they seem to think.

But what happens when Heisenberg pops a pair of Hydrogen atoms in to being at the pump event horizon? Has any one checked for Hawking radiation? :cheers:

[fizzissist]

But what happens when Heisenberg pops a pair of Hydrogen atoms in to being at the pump event horizon? Has any one checked for Hawking radiation? :cheers:

LOL!! That's good. Problem is you can't look too close at the atoms....

[dufas]

[QUOTE=fizzissist;921891]Then all we need is more of your pumps, and we'll have all the natural gas we need!!!/QUOTE]

Maybe hooking up hundreds of these amazing pumps in series would generate enough 'extra' gas that any gas shortages would be a distant memory.

.....or, series connect these amazing pumps into giant, endless circle and just tap off the additional gas that is generated. Perpetual gas machine.... No need for any more gas wells.

Scale the circle pump device down for private use and each home or vehicle could be run on the additional extra gas and the world's supply of fuel is solved along with global warming/climate change has been taken care of through the use of clean burning natural gas..... wow.............

[LatheMaster]

Never mind LatheMaster, the lab rats are always gnawing at the trivia just to be on the one up bus.

When I worked on the mines we serviced pumps that pumped salt water from the sea, and the glands were allowed to leak to lubricate the stuffing box and not only to keep the shaft cool, but to prevent air getting sucked in past the packing when that pump was shut down.

If the gland was tightened so that there was no water dribbling out you WOULD get more out of the discharge pipe than went in the suction, C O M P A R E D.... to the other makes of pump, but the pump would overheat and burn the packing so leading to failure within hours......which means in a nutshell for Fizzwizz to comprehend..... although you would get more out than went in, it would not last long, so normally that type of pump leaks intentionally, which equates to about a 98% delivery, a sum Fizzwizz is getting his knickers in a twist over.

Depending on how your nat gas pump is sealed at the gland, if it has gland shaft seals, then with a superior sealing system you could well say you get more out in the final count.....(compared to other pumps).

Probably a peristaltic type pump is totally leak proof, so equal equal....whatever.
Ian.

I guess that's what happens when you bash your brain working with theories all day . I did ask some old timers here and they said it has something to do with going from a liquid state to a gas state . There's probably more involved than that but I will never know . Proprietary stuff you know .

[Boltz]

Mariss, you've made some pretty bold assertions here. I invite you to back them up. Perhaps you could compare the cost of an installed gigawatt of nuclear versus wind, including the cost of capital from the time of commitment to the first salable kilowatt of electricity.

As a lifelong resident of an "inhabited latitude" (Minneapolis, MN- roughly 45 degrees north) I can testify that when an arctic air mass (what we call an "Alberta clipper") moves in during the winter the wind positively howls.

Very cold winter weather is usually the result of a arctic high pressure system descending into the temperate latitudes. These arctic high pressure circulations bring frigid temperatures and calm winds to the inhabited latitudes. The very time you most need energy to heat your house is during weather that makes windmills useless.

Windmills are tried and true 13th century alternate energy sources. We have moved beyond those times 700 years ago when no other alternatives (oil, nuclear) existed. They are ridiculous and ineffectual contraptions.

Mariss

[fizzissist]

I guess that's what happens when you bash your brain working with theories all day . I did ask some old timers here and they said it has something to do with going from a liquid state to a gas state . There's probably more involved than that but I will never know . Proprietary stuff you know .

Oh yeah....Conservation of mass, energy, and those "proprietary" gas laws......

You're crackin' me up!!

I don't spell fizziks right, but you can't DO physics. You better stick to things you know, like...uh..G01.

Robin Hewitt mentioned Heisenberg....You might want to wander over to the Physics Department at UNR and talk to Dr. Winterberg. He got his PhD from Heisenberg. He's a theorist, but he can point you in the direction of some empirical guys that'll be happy to explain how you don't get more out than you put in.

It's a physics thing, ya know.

One caveat, if you listen to HandieWankie, you'll think you know a lot more than you really do, and become argumentative at the same time.