Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wind Power Is An Environmental Disaster
The Patriot Room ^ | August 14, 2008 | Bill Dupray

Posted on 08/14/2008 2:11:35 PM PDT by Bill Dupray

Usually when you argue with liberals, you can start winning right off the bat by denying the premise of their argument. On energy, their premise is that wind power is pure, clean energy, harnessing mother nature with no downside at all. After all it is just a breeze, which we like on hot summer days, and other than lifting loosely glued toupees and bad comb-overs, it is harmless. Right?

Well we don't get wind power from pin-wheels. We get it from thousands of huge, industrial grade wind turbines, which, for the dim bulbs on the left, are machines.

(Excerpt) Read more at patriotroom.com ...


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: boonepickens; energy; environment; oil; pelosipickens; tboonepickens; wind; windenergy; windpower
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

1 posted on 08/14/2008 2:11:37 PM PDT by Bill Dupray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Bill Dupray

Can someone answer me something. We have a wind farm recently put up in our area. You can see it as you drive out in the country. It’s in the distance. THere must be fifty of these things and the number is growing.

EACH AND EVERY TIME I DRIVE BY THE PROPS ARE TURNING REGARDLESS IF THERE IS WIND OR NO WIND. ON DAYS WHEN THERE IS NO WIND THE PROPS ARE GOING.

How can this be? Is someone fooling us?


2 posted on 08/14/2008 2:15:51 PM PDT by nikos1121 (The first black president of the US should be at least a "Jackie Robinson.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nikos1121

Liberal trick. They leave the fans on to make it look like they actually do something.


3 posted on 08/14/2008 2:18:54 PM PDT by Bill Dupray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nikos1121

That is what wind farms do ... create wind. Where do you think those breezes come from?


4 posted on 08/14/2008 2:19:39 PM PDT by HiramQuick (work harder ... welfare recipients depend on you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nikos1121

There could easily be enough wind 200 or 300 feet in the air to get these things turning. It’s not the wind 6 feet off the ground that makes them turn.


5 posted on 08/14/2008 2:21:45 PM PDT by willgolfforfood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bill Dupray

“Well we don’t get wind power from pin-wheels. We get it from thousands of huge, industrial grade wind turbines, which, for the dim bulbs on the left, are machines.”

Machines are great and wonderful things. I think conservatives need to be just a-okay with wind from an environmental view (the economics are another thing).

I am all for letting the liberals be the NIMBYs on wind and for conservatives to be the problem-solvers.
Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, who touted the fact that Texas leads the nation in install wind power capacity, notes that, after a few generations, we’ll have smarter birds. ;-) And I think its hilarious that the liberals in Cape Cod stopped wind, and now - hey wait a sec - a conservative Texas *oil man* is getting big Govt subsidies for doing something “green”... Huh?!? Only Al Gore was supposed to be in on that scam!!

The scam part is not the technology - it works - or the environmental impact - yeah, its probably noisy, but its noisy in the flat plains where few people live. The scam part is how we have to fund ‘alternative’ and ‘renewable’ energy to the tune of billions via taxpayer money. If it really works, let the free market carry it forward.

Despite its downsides, wind is not too bad and it only proves a conservative point that ANY REAL TECHNOLOGY will have pros and cons. Solar? Chews up a lot of land, expensive, and PV cell production uses lots of icky chemicals. And technology to power 290 million AMerican lifestyles will have steel, electric towers, large-scale plants and run by corporations. Meanwhile the nuclear power the libs love to hate is the #1 worlds source of CO2 emissions free power - safe, reliable, environmentally friendly. Slap a Green Sticker on all those nukes! Build 400 nuclear power plants and say good bye to global warming and hello to energy independence.


6 posted on 08/14/2008 2:21:58 PM PDT by WOSG (http://no-bama.blogspot.com/ - NObama, stop the Hype and Chains candidate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
It kills birds. We simply can't do it.
7 posted on 08/14/2008 2:24:18 PM PDT by Bill Dupray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nikos1121

Generally @300 feet there’s enough wind to keep things moving

If you look up motorwind you’ll fin a low speed possibility for residential use which only requires 5kph or 2 mph to generate electricity...I think the big boys need at least 12-15 mph

also with the height of the towers , you can fit a lot of squirrels on little treadmills to keep the turbines spinning


8 posted on 08/14/2008 2:26:06 PM PDT by pipecorp ( Al Lahsucks (boat steersman ) hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bill Dupray

Condor Cuisenart.


9 posted on 08/14/2008 2:26:48 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Who would McQueeg rather have mad at him: You or the liberals? FREE LAZAMATAZ!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: WOSG

They are noisy. Really! Go find one and get out of the car to stand next to it, you’d be surprised.


10 posted on 08/14/2008 2:28:09 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Who would McQueeg rather have mad at him: You or the liberals? FREE LAZAMATAZ!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nikos1121

Just because you don’t feel any breeze on the ground doesn’t mean there isn’t one “in the distance” and 400 feet up in the air where the blades of the wind turmines are.


11 posted on 08/14/2008 2:28:16 PM PDT by Valpal1 (OW! My head just exploded!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nikos1121
Wind is often “vertically stacked” meaning that the winds can blow, not blow, blow in different directions, but separated vertically. So it is quite possible and very common for there be less than 2 mph breeze at ground level but blowing 20 mph up at 100 feet.
12 posted on 08/14/2008 2:31:32 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

But they never stop. If that’s the case then you’d think that this might be suitable for some applications. But, what are we going to have areas with thousands of these things? It doesn’t generate squat in comparison to coal and nuclear...


13 posted on 08/14/2008 2:33:11 PM PDT by nikos1121 (The first black president of the US should be at least a "Jackie Robinson.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bill Dupray
T-Bone Pickens and Nancy Pelousi have something going here with TB's CLNE venture. One of the largest stockholders is none other than Miss Nance.

Nance stands to clean up with CLNE while the rest of us suffer what a Democrat-controlled congress has done to our 'bankrolls.'

Democrats are the reason for the stock market decline and for the prices in grocery stores.

14 posted on 08/14/2008 2:34:14 PM PDT by IbJensen (Ali Bama isn't going to make it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1

400 feet up ?


15 posted on 08/14/2008 2:34:20 PM PDT by nikos1121 (The first black president of the US should be at least a "Jackie Robinson.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nikos1121

They burn natural gas to power the windmills to keep them going even when there is no wind.


16 posted on 08/14/2008 2:35:20 PM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nikos1121
Wind is often “vertically stacked” meaning that the winds can blow, not blow, blow in different directions, but separated vertically. So it is quite possible and very common for there be less than 2 mph breeze at ground level but blowing 20 mph up at 100 feet.
17 posted on 08/14/2008 2:35:23 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HiramQuick

“That is what wind farms do ... create wind. Where do you think those breezes come from?”

But of course . . . Cattle ranches produce cattle, chicken rancehes produce chickens, wheat farms, etc.


18 posted on 08/14/2008 2:36:26 PM PDT by dirtymac (Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
I agree with all of your points in Post #6, particularly with respect to the nukes, and "If it really works, let the free market carry it forward".
The Gov has done a wonderful job in forcing ethanol down our throats - they need to let the markets work to develop the optimum energy sources...
And besides the nukes -- drill holes, lots of holes...
19 posted on 08/14/2008 2:36:34 PM PDT by El Cid (Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bill Dupray

Even if its not the solution to all energy problems, wind power is a good thing. Sure, it has peak-to-average power problems, and isn’t yet as cheap as hydrocarbon power, but its getting there.

I live on Cape Cod, where its almost always windy offshore. An offshore wind farm would supply up to 75% of the Cape’s power requirements. The adversaries to the project, of course, are people like Kennedy and Kerry, who don’t want to see the turbines 5 miles out to see from their yacht docks.

Boone Pickens might not be completely right on the natural gas side of his proposition, but he’s rich enough and old that he doesn’t have to talk his book up. I think he’s sincere, even if he is betting financially on the things he’s recommending.


20 posted on 08/14/2008 2:37:10 PM PDT by Pearls Before Swine (Is /sarc really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: willgolfforfood

What really makes wind mills turn is the $100,000 tax credit the Govt gives for them. Let’s criticize the oil companies who earn a 7%-9% profit.


21 posted on 08/14/2008 2:38:28 PM PDT by dirtymac (Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nikos1121

Wind turbines can generate considerable power. There are several projects already producing over 100 MW across the globe. The real comparison is the cost to kw or cost efficiency, not that total MW power production.


22 posted on 08/14/2008 2:39:57 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: nikos1121
Enviro-kooks are opposed to oil because oil is produced and sold by large corporations.

The environmentalist movement is really an anti-business movement. As soon as they learn the wind turbines and solar panels are produced by giant corporations, they will oppose those also.
23 posted on 08/14/2008 2:40:56 PM PDT by atomicweeder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bill Dupray

I would love to have a windmill on my property to generate electricity.


24 posted on 08/14/2008 2:42:01 PM PDT by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nikos1121

big ones can be even taller

http://www.macalester.edu/maccares/Images/Turbine%20Scale%20-%20Windustry.jpg

http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/wind_turbines/en/index.htm


25 posted on 08/14/2008 2:43:30 PM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
The real comparison is the cost to kw or cost efficiency, not that total MW power production.

No, kW just gives you capacity. Cost per kWH, energy produced, is the comparison that counts. Then factor in reliability and the cost to store power when it's generated off-peak to demand on-peak.

26 posted on 08/14/2008 2:45:48 PM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ViLaLuz

You can’t afford it.


27 posted on 08/14/2008 2:49:10 PM PDT by caver (Yes, I did crawl out of a hole in the ground.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: caver

BTTT


28 posted on 08/14/2008 2:56:14 PM PDT by defconw (Pray for Snow-RIP TONY, we love you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: nikos1121

It’s in the linked blog.

“Many modern turbines are 400 feet tall and carry 130-foot-long, 7-ton blades”

They are building them all over eastern Oregon where I live also.


29 posted on 08/14/2008 3:13:22 PM PDT by Valpal1 (OW! My head just exploded!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Bill Dupray
Screw the “environmental impact” for a moment and think of this. Haven't any of these guys taken a basics physics, chemistry or basic biology class? Don't they know that carbon combustion IS THE ONLY renewable source of energy? I know many of these guys are lawyers so maybe they should familiarize themselves with the laws of thermodynamics. Law #1: you can't get more energy out of a system than what is put in and Law #2 states that law 1 cannot be truly achieved as nothing is 100% efficient. Amongst the substances is nature, carbon combustion especialy from hydrocarbons purified from petroleum is the most efficient source in nature. Of all the sources of energy wind and solar power are the most ineffiecient as the amount of lost kinetic energy to the system is huge. These simple measurement of the particle density of air would predict that. These are simple physical principles but I guess they are like road runners who never really studied law.
30 posted on 08/14/2008 3:19:44 PM PDT by Pharmer (How am I supposed to rule the world when I surrounded by freakin liberal idiots!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1

According to a Forbes article in its June 16 edition,

“Two of the biggest wind farms in Europe have 159 turbines and cover thousands of acres between the, but together take a year to produce less than four days output from a single conventional power station.”


31 posted on 08/14/2008 3:23:08 PM PDT by Claytonbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ViLaLuz

In the book “Gusher of Lies” by Robert Bryce (great book),

“In July 2006, wind turbines in CA produced power at only about 10% of their capacity; in Texas, one of the most promising states for wind energy, the windmills produced electricity at about 17% of their rated capacity”


32 posted on 08/14/2008 3:27:18 PM PDT by Claytonbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

I noticed this effect while working on skyscrapers inspecting welds and bolt connections. There would be little wind at ground level yet 20 MPH winds 30 stories up.


33 posted on 08/14/2008 3:27:48 PM PDT by 12Gauge687 (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Claytonbridge

According to another Forbes article in its June 16 edition, per H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.....

“One notorious example is a wind farm in Altamont Pass, CA. In their 27 year lifetime, these wind turbines have dealt a grizzly end to upward of 130,000 birds. And these aren’t just plain everyday birds. For example between 75 and 116 golden eagles are sliced to death each year.”


34 posted on 08/14/2008 3:33:21 PM PDT by Claytonbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: WOSG

“Solar? Chews up a lot of land, expensive, and PV cell production uses lots of icky chemicals”

not really

about 1/2 of one house roof produces 100% of the kWh

10 W / SF ; 1 MW = 100,000 SF = 1800 MWh / yr in CA

PV is SILCON mostly, with Aluminum and Boron dopants- all NON toxic chemicals, along with glass and aluminum

the ONLY argument against solar is “its too expensive” - and it IS expensive- but it DOES work ANYWHERE (except AK in the wintertime)

Wind Power does only work large scale- but is cheap , and who cares about the stupid birds?

Nukes are ESSENTIAL ASAP for 24 hr power - Boone P is right - natural gas should NOT be used for electric prod.

Hydrogen is a good renewable fuel that noone is talking about, can be mixed into gasoline, biofuels, nat gas and others at stoichiometric ratios- that is coming down the pike soon with gas @ 4$

We need to :

(1) DRILL DRILL DRILL our own resources
(2) BUILD NUKES NOW at least 100 new plants
(3) switch to hythane (hydrogen - natural gas)combustion / electric hybrid vehicles over the next 25 years
(4) start to convert to liquid H2 for airplanes
(5) incentivize PV with a SREC program like New Jersey , where you get ca$h for your clean energy, that the utilities must purchase to do business in the state
(6) put wind in where it makes sense and improve transmission lines to support the sparse areas
(7) increase energy efficiency and power quality - without FORCING ANYONE TO switch to those stupid CFs
(8) persue ANY other energy technology that makes sense
(9) ELIMINATE EtOH and other STUPID programs

and

TELL THE DEMOCRATS TO SHUT THE H*LL UP AND GO AWAY


35 posted on 08/14/2008 3:36:36 PM PDT by kauaiboy (when the good men do nothing the evil democommieislamists win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Claytonbridge
Iowa is being bombarded with them. Hundreds of them dot the landscape along I35 in the northern part of the state. Some facts I uncovered while up there 3 weeks ago: Mfg. Nordex 600 KW and 125 KW for hi and low wind contitons. Blades 75 ft. Avg Tower 200 ft. Genrator weighs 21.5 tons concrete base 137 tons Needs 6 - 9 mph wind to turn blades. Rpm is 17.9 (low) 26.9 (hi) Tips of blades move either 96 mph or 146 mph Automatic brake for "runaway conditions" At the best rate of 600KW .. that would only supply enpugh electicity for a small neighborhood of several blocks. The difficulty .... as always .... distribution. And of curse reliability ... significant drop as wind drops ... see above .. 600kw to 125kw. About 1% of our electricity is from wind ... and that is only if it is blowing. Cost factor of moving power away from each unit to a trunkline is where the expense is. Without gubmint subsidies these things will never survive on their own .. Your tax dollars at work ... courtesy of the wonderful efficient gubmint we have.
36 posted on 08/14/2008 3:40:42 PM PDT by HiramQuick (work harder ... welfare recipients depend on you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1

The ones in my back yard have the 100ft props...problem is the poles are only 110ft. They ran out of funding.


37 posted on 08/14/2008 3:42:42 PM PDT by nikos1121 (The first black president of the US should be at least a "Jackie Robinson.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
I might be able to understand your ire over how liberals hate everything nuclear or fossil fuel. However I recall watching a live interview in which T Boone himself admitted wind is only a part of the solution. He mentioned natural gas, clean coal, nuclear, ocs drilling etc. I believe he has a horse in this race but the magical fantasies the liberals are looking at to solve this problems astounds me.
38 posted on 08/14/2008 5:28:26 PM PDT by weedhop (http://weedhop.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kauaiboy
Hydrogen is a good renewable fuel that noone is talking about

No one is talking about it, because it is not a fuel --unless you consider hydrogen bound to carbon -- which everyone has been talking about for a very long time. There is no free hydrogen anywhere on earth, so it must be reduced from somewhere else. Since it must be reduced before it can be oxidized, it is not a fuel; just a storage medium. As a storage medium it is problematic: it's far more dangerous than gasoline or diesel, and since it is an oxidizer itself, it presents serious problems with most metal uses. Unless you're burning uranium to produce hydrogen by electrolysis, it makes more sense to just oxidize hydrogen from hydrocarbons at the point of generation in the first place.

39 posted on 08/14/2008 8:32:19 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Not coincidentally, the people pushing hydrogen technology have day jobs where they drill for oil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: weedhop

“I might be able to understand your ire over how liberals hate everything nuclear or fossil fuel. However I recall watching a live interview in which T Boone himself admitted wind is only a part of the solution.”

Yeah, but T Boone is anything but a liberal airhead. He’s a smart businessman and is riding the wind gravy train.

“He mentioned natural gas, clean coal, nuclear, ocs drilling etc. I believe he has a horse in this race but the magical fantasies the liberals are looking at to solve this problems astounds me.”

Tell me about it. $2.3 billion for a 100MW plant to burn wood chips - its ‘green’ energy so a plant that cost half as much to produce 10X the power is offlimits. the mind boggles- but this is Austin...
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/08/up-in-smoke-austins-biofuel-boondoggle.html


40 posted on 08/14/2008 9:00:54 PM PDT by WOSG (http://no-bama.blogspot.com/ - NObama, stop the Hype and Chains candidate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

“There are several projects already producing over 100 MW across the globe. “

There is over 5,000MW of installed wind power in Texas, we are #1 in the nation in wind power.

It still begs the question - how much should we subsidize wind? Any ‘good’ thing gets ruined by subsidies.


41 posted on 08/14/2008 9:02:49 PM PDT by WOSG (http://no-bama.blogspot.com/ - NObama, stop the Hype and Chains candidate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: kauaiboy

I dont want to quibble, I was making a point that all real technology can be cast in negative terms, but ...

“PV is SILCON mostly, with Aluminum and Boron dopants- all NON toxic chemicals, along with glass and aluminum”

I am in the semiconductor industry and I can assure you there are multiple toxic chemicals used in manufacture of semiconductors including PVs.

General agreement on what needs to happen ...

(1) DRILL DRILL DRILL our own resources
- AND USE SHALE
(2) BUILD NUKES NOW at least 100 new plants
- MAKE IT 400. STOP NAT GAS FOR POWER.

(3) switch to hythane (hydrogen - natural gas)combustion / electric hybrid vehicles over the next 25 years
- PLUG-IN ELECTRIC HYBRIDS + ALT FUELS = DRAMATIC REDUCTION IN OIL CONSUMPTION

(4) start to convert to liquid H2 for airplanes
- NOT NEEDED IMHO, LIQUID ALT FUELS WORKS

(5) incentivize PV with a SREC program like New Jersey , where you get ca$h for your clean energy, that the utilities must purchase to do business in the state
- WE HAVE BILLIONS IN R&D ALREADY. CONTINUE.
- ADD BACK NUCLEAR POWER R&D IN LEAD_COOLED REACTORS.
(6) put wind in where it makes sense and improve transmission lines to support the sparse areas
- WHERE IT MAKES SENSE = DONT SUBSIDIZE IT
(7) increase energy efficiency and power quality - without FORCING ANYONE TO switch to those stupid CFs
- AGREE
(8) persue ANY other energy technology that makes sense
(9) ELIMINATE EtOH and other STUPID programs
- Ethanol subsidies + ethanol tariffs = bizarroworld
- Eliminate subsidies

“TELL THE DEMOCRATS TO SHUT THE H*LL UP AND GO AWAY”
- WORKS FOR ME!


42 posted on 08/14/2008 9:11:23 PM PDT by WOSG (http://no-bama.blogspot.com/ - NObama, stop the Hype and Chains candidate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Bill Dupray
"It kills birds. We simply can't do it"

EPA compliance filings indicate, and EPA accepts, 1 to 1.5 bird fatalities/yr/machine.

yitbos

43 posted on 08/15/2008 1:35:18 AM PDT by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds." - Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

hydrogen is very SIMPLE

I can put a BOX in your house and plug it in, plug it into your car, and you can run your car

hydrogen very clearly works

and please name for me the fuel with the HIGHEST ENERGY DENSITY __________________________

name me the fuel that propels the space shuttle________

name for me some other “alternative” or renewable fuel (ie on the scale that we currently use JP4) with enough ENERGY DESNITY (kJ/ kG) to power JET AIRCRAFT

I am awaiting your answers

_____________________


44 posted on 08/19/2008 7:53:35 PM PDT by kauaiboy (when the good men do nothing the evil democommieislamists win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: kauaiboy

You’ll get my answer, as soon as you tell me where on earth there is any free hydrogen.


45 posted on 08/20/2008 1:26:01 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Would you like a little more nuance with your er-um-uh-ah?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

WIND POWER will cause massive climate change.

For every windmill there is an energy trade off. Instead of the wind blowing freely and helping to move the clouds and moisture, the wind energy gets intercepted by the blades.

The wind energy is TAKEN from the environment and converted to electricty. This is not right, since energy can neither be created nor destroyed, the wind energy that is now turning turbines is not available to blow freely in the environment.

Taking the wind away by using windmills means there will be less wind downwind from the stations, so if Texas has a lot of windmills making electricity then Louisiana and Missississippi will not be getting as much wind in their environments.

This will lead to more pollution in the down wind areas!
Less wind means fewer clouds and less rain!

We cannot take the wind from some people just to make electricity, it’s going to ruin the climate!

If there are too many windmills then all the wind will be lost because all of the wind will be turning turbines and no more wind will be free to just blow!!

FREE THE WIND Let it blow!

/s


46 posted on 08/21/2008 5:50:14 PM PDT by GRRRRR (2008- A Year That Will Live in Infamy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

hydrogen can be obtianed from water and electricity in any home

h2 can be produced from natural gas via reformation

nothing is “free” except primary sources of energy

gasoline is certainly not free, is it?

its all as matter of economics

If I can put in box in my house and make my own gas for less than 4$ / MMBTU equiv , then the game is on


47 posted on 08/24/2008 9:46:22 AM PDT by kauaiboy (when the good men do nothing the evil democommieislamists win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: kauaiboy
hydrogen can be obtained from water and electricity in any home

If I already have electricity, what am I using the hydrogen to do electrolysis for? Anyway, H2 in H2O is not free hydrogen.

h2 can be produced from natural gas via reformation

That's also not free hydrogen.

nothing is “free” except primary sources of energy

This statement is nonsense.

Hydrogen on earth is not free in the sense that it is already bound to other things, most notably oxygen, but also carbon, and metals. If you must reduce the hydrogen from water, in order to oxidize it in a fuel cell, or combustion, there is a net loss of energy. Oxidizing hydrides in metals has enormous energy costs. Oxidizing hydrogen from water and then burning it in the atmosphere or using it in a hydrogen fuel cell has a theoretical net zero energy yield, but of course because of entropy is a net energy loser in practical applications. Oxidizing hydrogen from hydrocarbons has a net positive energy yield.

gasoline is certainly not free, is it?

Good Lord. This statement is ridiculous. Gasoline is a refined product which has a net positive energy yield. Hydrogen has a net negative energy yield when reduced by electrolysis or recombined into H2 from hydrocarbons. It is NOT a source of energy. It can be used to transport energy, but it CANNOT be used to produce it, and as a transport medium, it SUCKS.

Since you've obviously no knowledge of Physics or even rudimentary Chemistry I hate to pick on you, and you've made at least a mild attempt to answer my question, though you appear to be confused on the distinction between chemically bound states of oxidized elements (free states) and economics "having no cost," which is a unicorn; there is no such thing. I'll try to enlighten you as to your earlier questions.

As for your hydrogen house, please don't move in anywhere near me.

48 posted on 08/24/2008 11:48:48 AM PDT by FredZarguna (I, meme, mime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: nikos1121

Is it up in the hills or mountains? On our ranch, which is mostly mountainous there are places where the wind blows 24/7. My MIL lives up on the slope and the wind blows almost constantly there too while there isn’t a wisp of breeze down in the valley.


49 posted on 08/24/2008 12:03:21 PM PDT by tiki (True Christians will not deliberately slander or misrepresent others or their beliefs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

“Since you’ve obviously no knowledge of Physics or even rudimentary Chemistry I hate to pick on you”

Oh really, my friend?

Umm

Actually I have advanaced degrees MSME and MS ChE in both Chemical and Mechanical Engineering , with theses based on supercritical flow reactors and catalysis

so let me pick apart your answers and lets see whose right

AGAIN , the key here is finding ALTERNATIVE FUELS

WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO DEPEND ON THE SAUDIS AND CHAVEZ, CAN WE? and OIL will not last forever will it? I think gasoline is great - dont get me wrong - but it is problematic now with demand and supply issues

This is factual

nothing is “free” except primary sources of energy

you say its nonsense

well youre wrong

primary sources of energy include anything that takes no initial input to derive- this includes solar, wind, Oil, Uranium ,Coal, Natural Gas and many others

gasoline is certainly not free, is it?

Good Lord. This statement is ridiculous.

Oh really? its 4$ PER GALLON RIGHT NOW- that aint free!

and its like 8-10 $ in Europe

forget the kBTU / gal etc, it COSTS MONEY

“It can be used to transport energy, but it CANNOT be used to produce it, and as a transport medium, it SUCKS.”

Oh really ? what do we use to power the space shuttle ? what is the ONLY fuel with enough MJ/ kG to even make it into space ? huh ? HYDROGEN - Liquid

you said : Hydrogen does NOT have the highest energy density of any substance

youre DEAD WRONG , and it shows you are cockier that you should be and acting like the haughty John Kerry

your statement “ In combustion, even compressed or liquefied hydrogen has an energy density far below gasoline” is DEAD WRONG

lets look at the FACTS

FROM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

energy density (MJ/ kG)

hydrogen 143

gasoline 46.9

rest of propane, butane JP-4 etc 40-45

so youre WRONG. PERIOD

Hydrogen is by FAR the highest energy density fuel by mass

now by VOLUME, your litany of complaints about hydrogen are closer but you still need a spanking by a REAL CHEM E

Here are your false statements

“Hydrogen is extremely dangerous to store and transport in most forms.”

this is total nonsense- hydrogen is completely nontoxic and dissipates instantly ,and generates only steam

gasoline and JP4 are FAR more dangerous and toxic, not only on their own merits (water pollution and air pollution) but also when there is an accident , they pool and burn for hours , giving off noxious gases - see the recent plane wrecks and the one in Tenerife in 1977

look at the Hindenberg- the typical example posed by those who think H2 is dangerous - most people walked away without a scratch and the flames were over in about 5 minutes

“The material with the highest energy density currently available to our science is uranium. “

gee thats great - lets runs cars and planes on U238 !

“Because hydrogen is an oxidizer, it destroys metals with which it interacts, “

This is called embrittlement- it is an issue but not a major problem - you far overstate it

the BOTTOM LINE is that I can produce hydrogen in my house and run my car on it for about 5$ / gal equivalent - with no pollution or gasoline

I can mix in to ANY fuel stream and improve the burn

I can mix H2 with CH4 (nat gas) at ANY stoichiometric ratio

T Boone is right - we DO need to use nat gas for cars and then begin producing H2 with off peak nuclear energy and supplement - its called HYTHANE

you can live in the past with you misconceptions and half truths, but even John McCain gets it and is talking about it

hydrogen can run cars, planes , the space shuttle and pretty much anything else - and can be made from water

that is the facts , please feel free to refute


50 posted on 08/30/2008 10:23:19 PM PDT by kauaiboy (when the good men do nothing the evil democommieislamists win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson