[UncleAl]

The US consumes the equivalent of 1.2 metric tonnes of matter 100% converted into energy each year, E=mc^2.

You are all clueless. Sparrow farts run through a gas turbine won't get you 10^20 joules/year. Not now, not ever. Pulling 10^20 joules/year out of wind or waves would monstrously perturb the weather. Where do the energy and raw materials necessary to fabricate and install your New Age hind gut fermentations originate? Who pays for the environmental impact reports and litigations therefrom?

What are the unknown hazards? Can you guarantee absolute safety for 10,000 years? Let's have a uniform set of standards, eginineering and New Age bullshit both. Area necessary to generate 1 GW electrical, theoretical minimum

mi^2
Area, Modality
====================
1000 biomass
300 wind
60 solar
0.3 nuclear

3x10^7 GWhr-thermal/year would need 9 billion mi^2 of wind collection area. The total surface area of the Earth is 197 million mi^2. 24 hrs/day. Looks like yer gonna come up a little short if 100% of the Earth were wind generators powering only the US.

Are ya gonna alternatively burn algae to generate 10^20 joules/year? Now you are a factor of 3 even worse - before processing and not counting inputs. THEY LIED TO YOU. They lied to you so poorly it can be dismissed with arithmetic. Where are your minds?

[geokker]

I think the heat of your rage will fill the gap.

[damocles]

Harvesting power from the Moon is easy.

Nope. Engineering scales are against you.

Build a large, shallow dam close to a spot at the coast where the tidal difference is pretty high.
Let high tide fill your dam, and at low tide let the water empty again through an array of turbines.
Because the drop won't be far enough to really make it worthwhile in terms of output, you need a heck of a big dam with a helluva lot of turbines.

A Katrina event will smash it. The very areas that are your prime candidates for such a tidal generator system, are also in the primary storm paths.

A much better idea will be to have cheap, erosion-resistant (say, carbon-fibre or fibreglass) turbines dropped in the sea.

Objections;
1. barnacles grow on it.
2. algae grows on it.
3. plankton clogs it
4. fish clogs it.
5. bearings seize up from calcite precipitation out of sea water.

How are you going to keep ten thousand turbines CLEAN?

[geokker]

Perhaps the turbines could be renewable/biodegradable so they have a short, replaceable lifespan.

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by UncleAl

The US consumes the equivalent of 1.2 metric tonnes of matter 100% converted into energy each year, E=mc^2.

You are all clueless. Sparrow farts run through a gas turbine won't get you 10^20 joules/year. Not now, not ever. Pulling 10^20 joules/year out of wind or waves would monstrously perturb the weather. Where do the energy and raw materials necessary to fabricate and install your New Age hind gut fermentations originate? Who pays for the environmental impact reports and litigations therefrom?

What are the unknown hazards? Can you guarantee absolute safety for 10,000 years? Let's have a uniform set of standards, eginineering and New Age bullshit both. Area necessary to generate 1 GW electrical, theoretical minimum

mi^2
Area, Modality
====================
1000 biomass
300 wind
60 solar
0.3 nuclear

3x10^7 GWhr-thermal/year would need 9 billion mi^2 of wind collection area. The total surface area of the Earth is 197 million mi^2. 24 hrs/day. Looks like yer gonna come up a little short if 100% of the Earth were wind generators powering only the US.

Uncle AL,
Stanford Scientist say we can get enough energy from the wind.
http://news-service.stanford.edu/new...nd-052505.html
A partial quote..."...After analyzing more than 8,000 wind-speed measurements to identify the world's wind-power potential for the first time, Cristina Archer, a former postdoctoral fellow, and Mark Z. Jacobson, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering, suggest that wind captured at specific locations, if even partially harnessed, can generate more than enough power to satisfy the world's energy demands. Their report appears in the May Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, a publication of the American Geophysical Union."

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by geokker

I find these hard to believe, what are your sources?

http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/.../wind/wind.asp
...and...
France Wind Capacity Has Doubled Since 2001 Tariff Law Passed
Denis Du Bois
February 25, 2005
The French branch of Boralex announced its plans to construct two new wind energy production sites in the mountainous French region known as the Massif Central. The 38 turbines will have a total capacity of 57 MW, bringing the company's total capacity in France to 81 MW.

France has 386 MW of installed wind energy capacity. The industry was given a boost by an electricity feed-in tariff law passed in 2001. Operators of wind energy projects receive guaranteed rates of EU€0.08 (US$0.11) per kWh for the first five years. Wind capacity in France has more than doubled since the law was passed.

Even so, France remains one of the smallest wind energy producers in Europe, far behind the 16,600 MW that the regional leader Germany has installed. In France, nuclear power makes up the majority of the energy production. The country has very limited fossil fuel resources, and meager prospects for increasing its hydropower production.

The European Union has 34,200 MW of installed wind energy capacity, and has the aggressive target of generating 22 percent of its electricity from wind by 2010.

Of the 38 new French turbines, 26 will be constructed in the province of Haute-Loire, and 12 will be located in Ardèche. The turbines have the capacity to generate 1.5 MW each under ideal wind conditions. Both sites are expected to be online by December, 2005.

Boralex owns a 95 percent stake in the project, while Perfect Wind holds the remaining five percent. The project required an investment of more than EU€83.5 million (US$110.6 million), to be financed by a major French bank. Boralex contracted with GE Wind Energy and Cégélec Sud-Ouest for the construction.

All of the output will be sold to Electricité de France (EDF) under a 15-year contract. The 30-year land lease is renewable for another 30 years at Boralex's option.

Claude Audet, president of Boralex, says his company has developed considerable expertise in wind energy and is well positioned to pursue a larger share of the wind industry in all regions of France. "The French wind sector is just getting started and shows great promise," says Audet. "The enforcement of the Kyoto Protocol last week is excellent news for the industry."

The Canadian company specializes in hydroelectric, thermal, cogeneration and wind energy. Boralex has a total installed wind capacity of 252 MW in France, Quebec and the US. In addition, Boralex manages another 190 MW of wind projects, in which it holds a 23 percent stake.

[damocles]

http://www.cslforum.org/ec.htm

Consult:

Table 6: Installed Electricity Generation Capacity in European Union, 1993-2002
(in thousands of megawatts)

For the calendar year 1993 the total capacity was 563.8, of which renewable( Geothermal/Solar/Wind/Biomass) was 3.4 and Hydroelectric(I consider this a renewable) was 90.7

For the calendar year 2002 the total capacity was 635.9, of which renewable( Geothermal/Solar/Wind/Biomass) was 23.6 and Hydroelectric(I consider this a renewable) was 93.3.

1. EU has come close to maxing out its riverine hydro-electric capacity.
2. Aside from France, as far as Nuclear goes? Pffffft.
3. Most growth comes from conventional thermal(fossil fuel) plants.
4. GSWB was the most aggressively pursued option, but its contribution remains INSIGNIFICANT.

Ratio of nonrenewable to renewable electrical generation 1993 EU is 16.7% of total.
GSWB was 0.6% of the total.

Ratio of nonrenewable to renewable electrical generation 2003 EU is 18.9% of total.
GSWB was 3.7% of the total.

That 2.2 % change in total ratios in renewables over the nine year period was almost entirely due to GSWB. As I said is its total contribution to power generation remains insignificant.

It is usually GSWB that the greens cite as the future basis of electrical production.

What the greens forget; is that aside from riverine hydropower and passive conductive geothermal renewables, most present renewable energy technologies have these factors that if the technologies were scaled to the huge scales that the bycycle crowd envision would actually produce this;

1. GSWB entails toxic chemistry in its manufacture and maintenance.
2. GSWB introduces heavy metal poisons to the aquifer because of 1.
3. GSWB has a huge terrain footprint that takes farmland out of production.
4. GSWB due to its polllution scales destroys the ecologies upon which it imprints.
5. GSWB is a low density kilowatt per square meter land used generating scheme that is grossly inefficient.

And that these problems are a factor of two greater than the ecological footprint per square meter of land used of the hydrocarbon technologies we use at present.

Its a psychotic approach to energy production by the green's own criterion for making a minimal impact on the ecology.

Suggestion. Visit either a windmill plantation or visit a solar collector array. Look at it. Scale the monstrosity up a THOUSAND times. Think of the copper, mercury, arsenic, selenium, silicon, lead, sulphur, etc. that went into building both contraptive abortions.....

Now think of the FOOTPRINT and where the thing was sited. Look at the LAND.

When you digest that, investigate fusion, and hydrogen fuel cells(the hydrogen coming from electrolysis of sea water). Fewer poisons involved. Smaller footprint. More concentrated energy production per square meter of land used. Far more electrical generation potentially available. THAT is the future.

Remember this, the power of the individual is ultimately measured by his access to electricity.

What about some of Tesla's ideas. I'm wondering if there are any groups or companies out there trying to put his "Wireless Transmission Of Power" theories to work? Does anyone know?

[erich]

Excellent post Damocles:.

From what I understand of the direct solar to hydrogen fabrication technology it is a much greener process, and cheaper that silicon based PVs. ( Hydrogen Solar home http://www.hydrogensolar.com/index.html )

And the nano-dot approach to PVs also promises full spectrum conversion efficiencies along with clean production processes. ( UB News Services-solar nano-dots http://www.buffalo.edu/news/fast-exe...ticle=75000009 )


Jennfinn:

There are many Tesla groups working , but a Google Scholar http://scholar.google.com/ on them makes me dought their viability.

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by damocles

For the calendar year 1993 the total capacity was 563.8, of which renewable( Geothermal/Solar/Wind/Biomass) was 3.4 and Hydroelectric(I consider this a renewable) was 90.7

For the calendar year 2002 the total capacity was 635.9, of which renewable( Geothermal/Solar/Wind/Biomass) was 23.6 and Hydroelectric(I consider this a renewable) was 93.3.

1. EU has come close to maxing out its riverine hydro-electric capacity.
2. Aside from France, as far as Nuclear goes? Pffffft.
3. Most growth comes from conventional thermal(fossil fuel) plants.
4. GSWB was the most aggressively pursued option, but its contribution remains INSIGNIFICANT.

A 700% increase, over nine years, INSIGNIFICANT?!? How, exactly?

Originally Posted by damocles

It is usually GSWB that the greens cite as the future basis of electrical production.

What the greens forget; is that aside from riverine hydropower and passive conductive geothermal renewables, most present renewable energy technologies have these factors that if the technologies were scaled to the huge scales that the bycycle crowd envision would actually produce this;

1. GSWB entails toxic chemistry in its manufacture and maintenance.
2. GSWB introduces heavy metal poisons to the aquifer because of 1.
3. GSWB has a huge terrain footprint that takes farmland out of production.
4. GSWB due to its polllution scales destroys the ecologies upon which it imprints.
5. GSWB is a low density kilowatt per square meter land used generating scheme that is grossly inefficient.

As to:

1. As opposed to thermal or nuclear power stations that generates no pollutants in its manufacture? Duh? The difference here, being, that GSWB doesn't produce pollutants when in operation - unlike your alternatives, thermal and nuclear. So point one is blown out of the water.
2. Refer to the previous point. That's a pretty silly justification.
3. Huge footprint - sure. The US thermal energy complex has a footprint that spans halfway around the globe via the atmosphere. Brazilian treefrogs choke on their mosquitos so that the US can have streetlamps burning at ungodly hours. The difference here, is that per kilowatt the GSWB footprint might be considerably larger - but its effect on the ecosystem stops at the fencepost. Go GSWB!!!
4. HUH???
5. Compare healthcosts and ecological damage due to thermal/nuclear power generation. Add that cost to your electricity generation bill. Check you efficiency stats once more.

Originally Posted by damocles

And that these problems are a factor of two greater than the ecological footprint per square meter of land used of the hydrocarbon technologies we use at present.

Its a psychotic approach to energy production by the green's own criterion for making a minimal impact on the ecology.

Hey - let's throw all our eggs in one basket and use carbon-based fuels for our electricity generation! Let's rely on oil till the last drop in another twenty years' time! When the oil is finished, we're stuffed - but who cares; it's another 20 years away! And you call GSWB psychotic?! At best, I think you've made yourself guilty of a horribly unfortunate choice of words.

Originally Posted by damocles

Suggestion. Visit either a windmill plantation or visit a solar collector array. Look at it. Scale the monstrosity up a THOUSAND times. Think of the copper, mercury, arsenic, selenium, silicon, lead, sulphur, etc. that went into building both contraptive abortions.....

Now think of the FOOTPRINT and where the thing was sited. Look at the LAND.

Suggestion. After the above visitation, go visit any thermal power plant. Not only the plant itself, but the surrounds. Go and take air samples and precipitation acidity levels thousands of miles away downwind. THAT's your coal/oil-fired power station's footprint. Then go to the surrounding towns and test the locals for lung disease, etc. See the drop in agricultural output downwind as opposed to the same soil upwind. Also, keep in mind the crap coming out of those power stations after the input is burnt off.
Don't EVER call GSWB-type installations 'abortive contraptions' if the above is the alternative!

Originally Posted by damocles

When you digest that, investigate fusion, and hydrogen fuel cells(the hydrogen coming from electrolysis of sea water). Fewer poisons involved. Smaller footprint. More concentrated energy production per square meter of land used. Far more electrical generation potentially available. THAT is the future.

Electrolysis of seawater with power you get from where? What makes you think the production process in building a hydrogen fuel cell involves less poison? Last time I checked, that was a particularly filthy thing to manufacture!

Originally Posted by damocles

Remember this, the power of the individual is ultimately measured by his access to electricity.

The power of the individual will eventually most likely be how wisely he applies his mind to survive on this planet whilst keeping the rest of the planet in mind. Using resources in such a selfish way as if there's no tomorrow will ultimately lead to humankind's eventual end. Shooting down or retarding GSWB development because you've got a huge investment in carbon energy, and damn the rest, is no way for a government to behave.