On Fri, 9 May 2008 10:09:12 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:

There's nothing good about mining, hauling, processing and the burning
of coal, or that of most any other fossil fuel, especially considering
their birth-to-grave impact of byproducts plus loads of soot laced
with CO2 and NOx (not to mention a few too many other good and bad
elements).

Your post has nothing to do with the subject under discussion which is
wind power.

Casady

Alain Fournier wrote:
[sci.space.history and sci.military.naval deleted from the followup groups]

Richard Casady wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 10:09:35 -0400, Call Me Ishmael
at (no spam) OutSourcedNews.com> wrote:

Poetic Justice wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:

On Fri, 09 May 2008 01:25:43 +0100, Andrew Swallow
am.swal... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:

If you want to help the world build wind farms,

Iowa is a leader at that. 5% of the juice in Iowa is from wind. Unlike
solar, it works at night.

What do they do on a summer day when there isn't a breath of air or
breeze?

On a peak load summers day with all the air conditioners running....

You fire up a standby gas turbine plant. They have one of those in
downtown Des Moines. Doesn't even have a stack or cooling towers and
it's not all obtrusive. Wind generators are not expensive to build and
there is no cost whatever for fuel. It pays to have them even if you
still have to have a full set of fossil or nuke plants, that can carry
the load with no wind. No wind across the entire state is unlikely to
say the least. When the wind blows you put fossil plants on standby,
and don't burn the fuel.

More maintenance and cost to replace the wind, do you deduct all that
co$t from the "efficiency" rating of the wind power?

We have peak use Turbines 50 miles up the road, as a matter of fact I
know someone who put in an application to run the plant.

Why not use the Wind to *compress* giant *tanks of air* and use that
compressed air to make electric when the wind dies?

You have the right idea but a few mistakes in the implementation.

You don't want a full set of coal or nuke plants. Those take days
to restart and weather forecast still isn't perfect. You want
something that can be started in minutes. The gas turbine will do
the trick. Even better is hydro-power, you can start or stop
a turbine in a hydro-power plant in seconds, and the turbine
itself is cheap, its the dam that is expensive. When you
shutdown a few turbines at a hydro-electric dam, the dam is still
doing its work, it is accumulating water for when the wind will
go down. Here, in Quebec, we have added turbines to our dams so
we can make electricity at a rate that would not be sustainable
by the amount of rain we get. We can deplete our reservoirs when
the wind is down and replenish them when there is more wind.

Also, your claim that no wind across the entire state is unlikely
is not good. Weather patterns are rather large entities.

Alain Fournier

BradGuth wrote:
On May 9, 6:10 pm, Poetic Justice < at (no spam) http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-
Dog.com> wrote:
Alain Fournier wrote:
[sci.space.history and sci.military.naval deleted from the followup groups]
Richard Casady wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 10:09:35 -0400, Call Me Ishmael
at (no spam) OutSourcedNews.com> wrote:
Poetic Justice wrote:
Richard Casady wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 01:25:43 +0100, Andrew Swallow
am.swal... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
If you want to help the world build wind farms,
Iowa is a leader at that. 5% of the juice in Iowa is from wind. Unlike
solar, it works at night.
What do they do on a summer day when there isn't a breath of air or
breeze?
On a peak load summers day with all the air conditioners running....
You fire up a standby gas turbine plant. They have one of those in
downtown Des Moines. Doesn't even have a stack or cooling towers and
it's not all obtrusive. Wind generators are not expensive to build and
there is no cost whatever for fuel. It pays to have them even if you
still have to have a full set of fossil or nuke plants, that can carry
the load with no wind. No wind across the entire state is unlikely to
say the least. When the wind blows you put fossil plants on standby,
and don't burn the fuel.
More maintenance and cost to replace the wind, do you deduct all that
co$t from the "efficiency" rating of the wind power?

We have peak use Turbines 50 miles up the road, as a matter of fact I
know someone who put in an application to run the plant.

Why not use the Wind to *compress* giant *tanks of air* and use that
compressed air to make electric when the wind dies?

You have the right idea but a few mistakes in the implementation.
You don't want a full set of coal or nuke plants. Those take days
to restart and weather forecast still isn't perfect. You want
something that can be started in minutes. The gas turbine will do
the trick. Even better is hydro-power, you can start or stop
a turbine in a hydro-power plant in seconds, and the turbine
itself is cheap, its the dam that is expensive. When you
shutdown a few turbines at a hydro-electric dam, the dam is still
doing its work, it is accumulating water for when the wind will
go down. Here, in Quebec, we have added turbines to our dams so
we can make electricity at a rate that would not be sustainable
by the amount of rain we get. We can deplete our reservoirs when
the wind is down and replenish them when there is more wind.
Also, your claim that no wind across the entire state is unlikely
is not good. Weather patterns are rather large entities.
Alain Fournier

Any number of energy transfers or storage methods are perfectly
viable, not to mention basic products and services created by energy,
that is as long as you have established the surplus energy
infrastructure of wind, solar, tidal and geothermal energy to start
with, as well as having a few hundred thorium reactors.

Synfuels of H2, O2 and h2o2 from water, as well as far better and
cleaner use of fossil fuels becomes doable once there's a surplus of
affordably clean energy.
.. - Brad Guth

Producing hydrogen is a great idea, use the wind/solar to make electric
for hydrogen production and then use the hydrogen in a typical electric
plant or for cars. Make everything that is like wind and solar that are
intermittent, needs to produce something that can be accumulated into
vast usable portable energy that will produce a constant power source.

On Fri, 09 May 2008 10:09:35 -0400, Call Me Ishmael
at (no spam) OutSourcedNews.com> wrote:


Poetic Justice wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:

On Fri, 09 May 2008 01:25:43 +0100, Andrew Swallow
am.swallow at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:


If you want to help the world build wind farms,

Iowa is a leader at that. 5% of the juice in Iowa is from wind. Unlike
solar, it works at night.

What do they do on a summer day when there isn't a breath of air or breeze?


On a peak load summers day with all the air conditioners running....


You fire up a standby gas turbine plant. They have one of those in
downtown Des Moines. Doesn't even have a stack or cooling towers and
it's not all obtrusive. Wind generators are not expensive to build and
there is no cost whatever for fuel. It pays to have them even if you
still have to have a full set of fossil or nuke plants, that can carry
the load with no wind. No wind across the entire state is unlikely to
say the least. When the wind blows you put fossil plants on standby,
and don't burn the fuel.

jonathan wrote:
[snip]


Considering virtually NO money has been spent of SSP research, and
yet some are already presenting concepts where directly solar pumped
lasers replace microwaves, and rectenna sizes as small as three
meters, about the size of a car. If some real research money were
dedicated who knows what advances might happen?


The world has a population of several billion people so giving every
one their own SSP satellite would require several billion satellite,
that is not going to happen. Consequently SSP satellites have to be
city sized.

[sci.space.history and sci.military.naval deleted from the followup groups]

Richard Casady wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 10:09:35 -0400, Call Me Ishmael
at (no spam) OutSourcedNews.com> wrote:


Poetic Justice wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:

On Fri, 09 May 2008 01:25:43 +0100, Andrew Swallow
am.swallow at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:


If you want to help the world build wind farms,

Iowa is a leader at that. 5% of the juice in Iowa is from wind. Unlike
solar, it works at night.

What do they do on a summer day when there isn't a breath of air or
breeze?

On a peak load summers day with all the air conditioners running....


You fire up a standby gas turbine plant. They have one of those in
downtown Des Moines. Doesn't even have a stack or cooling towers and
it's not all obtrusive. Wind generators are not expensive to build and
there is no cost whatever for fuel. It pays to have them even if you
still have to have a full set of fossil or nuke plants, that can carry
the load with no wind. No wind across the entire state is unlikely to
say the least. When the wind blows you put fossil plants on standby,
and don't burn the fuel.

You have the right idea but a few mistakes in the implementation.

You don't want a full set of coal or nuke plants. Those take days
to restart and weather forecast still isn't perfect. You want
something that can be started in minutes. The gas turbine will do
the trick. Even better is hydro-power, you can start or stop
a turbine in a hydro-power plant in seconds, and the turbine
itself is cheap, its the dam that is expensive. When you
shutdown a few turbines at a hydro-electric dam, the dam is still
doing its work, it is accumulating water for when the wind will
go down. Here, in Quebec, we have added turbines to our dams so
we can make electricity at a rate that would not be sustainable
by the amount of rain we get. We can deplete our reservoirs when
the wind is down and replenish them when there is more wind.

Also, your claim that no wind across the entire state is unlikely
is not good. Weather patterns are rather large entities.


Alain Fournier

On May 9, 6:10 pm, Poetic Justice < at (no spam) http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-
Dog.com> wrote:
Alain Fournier wrote:
[sci.space.history and sci.military.naval deleted from the followup groups]
Richard Casady wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 10:09:35 -0400, Call Me Ishmael
at (no spam) OutSourcedNews.com> wrote:
Poetic Justice wrote:
Richard Casady wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 01:25:43 +0100, Andrew Swallow
am.swal... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
If you want to help the world build wind farms,
Iowa is a leader at that. 5% of the juice in Iowa is from wind. Unlike
solar, it works at night.
What do they do on a summer day when there isn't a breath of air or
breeze?
On a peak load summers day with all the air conditioners running....
You fire up a standby gas turbine plant. They have one of those in
downtown Des Moines. Doesn't even have a stack or cooling towers and
it's not all obtrusive. Wind generators are not expensive to build and
there is no cost whatever for fuel. It pays to have them even if you
still have to have a full set of fossil or nuke plants, that can carry
the load with no wind. No wind across the entire state is unlikely to
say the least. When the wind blows you put fossil plants on standby,
and don't burn the fuel.
More maintenance and cost to replace the wind, do you deduct all that
co$t from the "efficiency" rating of the wind power?

We have peak use Turbines 50 miles up the road, as a matter of fact I
know someone who put in an application to run the plant.

Why not use the Wind to *compress* giant *tanks of air* and use that
compressed air to make electric when the wind dies?

You have the right idea but a few mistakes in the implementation.
You don't want a full set of coal or nuke plants. Those take days
to restart and weather forecast still isn't perfect. You want
something that can be started in minutes. The gas turbine will do
the trick. Even better is hydro-power, you can start or stop
a turbine in a hydro-power plant in seconds, and the turbine
itself is cheap, its the dam that is expensive. When you
shutdown a few turbines at a hydro-electric dam, the dam is still
doing its work, it is accumulating water for when the wind will
go down. Here, in Quebec, we have added turbines to our dams so
we can make electricity at a rate that would not be sustainable
by the amount of rain we get. We can deplete our reservoirs when
the wind is down and replenish them when there is more wind.
Also, your claim that no wind across the entire state is unlikely
is not good. Weather patterns are rather large entities.
Alain Fournier

Any number of energy transfers or storage methods are perfectly
viable, not to mention basic products and services created by energy,
that is as long as you have established the surplus energy
infrastructure of wind, solar, tidal and geothermal energy to start
with, as well as having a few hundred thorium reactors.

Synfuels of H2, O2 and h2o2 from water, as well as far better and
cleaner use of fossil fuels becomes doable once there's a surplus of
affordably clean energy.
.. - Brad Guth

Also, your claim that no wind across the entire state is unlikely
is not good. Weather patterns are rather large entities.

On Fri, 09 May 2008 20:19:29 -0400, Alain Fournier
alain245 at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:

Also, your claim that no wind across the entire state is unlikely
is not good. Weather patterns are rather large entities.

Large like a tornado you mean. I used to fly and I don't remember any
maps showing no wind over a large area. I flew in lots of different

tailwheel type planes and they get unruly in a cross wind. So I was
paying attention to the wind at all times, you look at maps. You look
for clues like clothslines or smoke, just in case the mill quits. As I
once said, Iowa is a windy place.

Call Me Ishmael wrote:

Iowa is a leader at that. 5% of the juice in Iowa is from wind. Unlike
solar, it works at night.

What do they do on a summer day when there isn't a breath of air or breeze?



On a peak load summers day with all the air conditioners running....

So you have to maintain two systems.... how much carbon does it take to care
for two seperate power systems than just one ?

Since they are making 5% via wind, that implies they are making 95% some other
way.
I think the 5% is a average over a year's time.... on still days 0% is coming
from wind, on very windy days more than 5% of it is being made via wind, and
it averages out at 5%.
States sell electric power to each other, so if the wind farms out turning out
much power, it can come into the state from other sources.
My state of North Dakota is starting to build more wind farms - as we are the
windiest state in the nation and have vast areas of basically empty and flat
farmland that the wind generators can be built on.

Pat

Totorkon wrote:
The installed wind electric capacity in the US was 16.8 Gw in 2007,
roughly 17 three mile island sized pwrs or more than three 5GW spss.
If wind comprises more than 20% of generation, problems with supply vs
demand become important but could be handled with pumped storage,
pressurised air or more exotic possibilities.

The subject is relevant.  Should treasure be spent on earthbound green
power of known fiscal risk, that can be advanced incrementally, or on
what most people would consider to be 'pie in the sky'.

I've got Johnathan killfiled, as I consider him off his rocker...but
Earthbound versus space-based power generation is a interesting question
as far as cost-versus-benefits goes.
Certainly the Earth-based systems are a lot easier and cheaper to do
maintenance on, and also easier to tie into the present power grid.
This is a interesting project:http://www.enviromission.com.au/index.htm
Also, there was a recent development regarding "superinsulators" that
could surround superconducting power cables:http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/News/2008/MSD080404.html

Pat

I'M MAD AS HELL......

It's just insane. Oil was as low as $8 a barrel under Pres Clinton.
It increased by $60 a barrel just in the /last year/.

Let's just extrapolate that price increase out a few years, to...say...about the
time NASA gets to kick around a few more Moon Rocks in the year 2025
give or take ten?

I wonder how history will remember this time, when we had a choice between a
New Moon Base, or the Space Solar Power (SSP) program axed by President
Bush upon taking office.

This is what history will say I believe.

Everyone will be looking at our new shiny moon base much like we see
the ISS now. Doing /nothing/ except consume every available dollar just
to keep the thing flying. And they'll say it's clear the choice for the moon
over SSP was a result of two things.

The military: seeking the 'high ground' in the missile defense race.

Corruption: the big contractors preferring another "Bridge to Nowhere"
As they can promise NOTHING in return for the mega-bucks.
They haven't promised to cure anything, fix anything
or create anything beneficial to the taxpayers except
for the 'thing' itself Another ISS, existing only for the
sake of it. "Have Faith" The NASA administrator says...

There can be no other conclusion, that amidst a new global consensus
and awakening on the rapidly warming earth, we abandoned a visionary
long-term program, Space Solar Power, that could revolutionize
the future of this planet. A program that could not only address the
rapidly diminishing oil reserves, but also tackle greenhouse gasses
and global warming.

A single program, Space Solar Power, that could directly effect two of
greatest global threats. Not to mention all that flows from these
two threats, such as wars over oil, economic growth and national
security.

This was the program timeline when Bush canceled SSP

Space Solar Power Exploratory Research and Technology program (SERT)

a.. 2005: ~100 kW, Free-flyer, demo-scale commercial space
b.. 2010: ~100 kW Planetary Surface System, demo-scale, space exploration
c.. 2015: ~10 MW Free-flyer, Transportation; Large demo, solar clipper
d.. 2020: 1 GW Free-flyer, Full-scale solar power satellite commercial spacehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Solar_Power_Exploratory_Research_a...

By the time we build that shiny now Moon Base, The United States
...could've been building gigawatt class power satellites...we
...could have been on the threshold of becoming the next energy "Saudi Arabia".

Where ...America is the primary source of energy for the world.

But no, the military needs a new observation post, to target the Chinese.

Are we living in an era of denial, insanity or stupidity?

I can't think of any other reason for the choice we're making
to go back to the moon instead of using NASA not just to study
the atmosphere, but to be the agency responsible for ...improving it
as well.

Hey, you NASA guys want larger budgets??? SSP is the path to
long term public and Congressional support.

A Moon Base is a recipe for a much smaller-leaner NASA.
Stripped to the bones by a public angry that NASA's
..lack of foresight is exceeded only by it's
..lack of backbone.

Jonathan

s

I'M MAD AS HELL......

It's just insane. Oil was as low as $8 a barrel under Pres Clinton.
It increased by $60 a barrel just in the /last year/.

Let's just extrapolate that price increase out a few years, to...say...about the
time NASA gets to kick around a few more Moon Rocks in the year 2025
give or take ten?

I wonder how history will remember this time, when we had a choice between a
New Moon Base, or the Space Solar Power (SSP) program axed by President
Bush upon taking office.

This is what history will say I believe.

Everyone will be looking at our new shiny moon base much like we see
the ISS now. Doing /nothing/ except consume every available dollar just
to keep the thing flying. And they'll say it's clear the choice for the moon
over SSP was a result of two things.

The military: seeking the 'high ground' in the missile defense race.

Corruption: the big contractors preferring another "Bridge to Nowhere"
As they can promise NOTHING in return for the mega-bucks.
They haven't promised to cure anything, fix anything
or create anything beneficial to the taxpayers except
for the 'thing' itself Another ISS, existing only for the
sake of it. "Have Faith" The NASA administrator says...

There can be no other conclusion, that amidst a new global consensus
and awakening on the rapidly warming earth, we abandoned a visionary
long-term program, Space Solar Power, that could revolutionize
the future of this planet. A program that could not only address the
rapidly diminishing oil reserves, but also tackle greenhouse gasses
and global warming.

A single program, Space Solar Power, that could directly effect two of
greatest global threats. Not to mention all that flows from these
two threats, such as wars over oil, economic growth and national
security.

This was the program timeline when Bush canceled SSP

Space Solar Power Exploratory Research and Technology program (SERT)

a.. 2005: ~100 kW, Free-flyer, demo-scale commercial space
b.. 2010: ~100 kW Planetary Surface System, demo-scale, space exploration
c.. 2015: ~10 MW Free-flyer, Transportation; Large demo, solar clipper
d.. 2020: 1 GW Free-flyer, Full-scale solar power satellite commercial spacehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Solar_Power_Exploratory_Research_a...

By the time we build that shiny now Moon Base, The United States
...could've been building gigawatt class power satellites...we
...could have been on the threshold of becoming the next energy "Saudi Arabia".

Where ...America is the primary source of energy for the world.

But no, the military needs a new observation post, to target the Chinese.

Are we living in an era of denial, insanity or stupidity?

I can't think of any other reason for the choice we're making
to go back to the moon instead of using NASA not just to study
the atmosphere, but to be the agency responsible for ...improving it
as well.

Hey, you NASA guys want larger budgets??? SSP is the path to
long term public and Congressional support.

A Moon Base is a recipe for a much smaller-leaner NASA.
Stripped to the bones by a public angry that NASA's
..lack of foresight is exceeded only by it's
..lack of backbone.

Jonathan

s