On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 01:26:01 -0500, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:24:49 -0500, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

Is there someplace that has an analysis of how much energy is put into making, erecting,
and commissioning a windmill vs typical energy output. I'm wondering how long it takes to
recover the energy used to put it in place.

What scale are we talking about, Wes? Home or commercial with a 90'
wingspan?

Definitely commercial. I'm trying to make sure wind power isn't a feel good thing like
using corn for gasohol.

Right, and that turned into a nightmare which is ongoing. I HATE
gasohol and 10% ethanol fuel for its horrible mileage. It's gutless.


Since wind is a bit variable, we can assume it is somewhere in the wind corridor that T.
Boone Pickens was pitching.

I know solar cells have a lousy break even point unless the technology has changed
drastically.

Doesn't look like it has changed much.

The power factor has doubled (at minimum, while costs have gone down)
every decade since the 70s. They're up to 30% efficient now. We're
getting there.


Let me finish the book first, then I'll tell you if Tucker had stats
in there. _Terrestrial Energy_ is quite a good book so far (I'm 129
pgs into it now.) It's subtitled "_How Nuclear Power Will Lead the
Green Revolution and End America's Energy Odyssey_" He (and lots of
others in the know) is banking on nuclear power for the base and
solar, etc. to provide the peak power on a daily basis.

Until this book, I had no idea that it was the nuclear-_trained_
President Carter who derailed the nuclear industry, caused the
proliferation of nuke waste (by not allowing rod recycling), and
brought back coal, the dirtiest of all possible power sources.

Does the book go into his reasons for being anti nuke? That man has been an embarasment
all around.

Not so far as I've read. S. David Freeman, author of "A Time to
Choose", was anti-nuke and had Carter's ear. Skipping ahead in the
book, I see that it was Pres. Ford who actually halted nuclear
reprocessing, then Carter deferred any Fed help on the plants which
would have done the work. Carter was afraid that the recycling of
spent fuel would leasd to nuclear proliferation.

I was mistaken that he'd been fully trained in nuke operations, as
shown in this Wiki excerpt:

"Carter has said that he loved the Navy, and had planned to make it
his career. His ultimate goal was to become Chief of Naval Operations.
Carter felt the best route for promotion was with submarine duty since
he felt that nuclear power would be increasingly used in submarines.
During service on the diesel-electric submarine USS PomfretTemplate:WP
Ships USS instances, Carter was almost washed overboard.[7] After six
years of military service, Carter trained for the position of
engineering officer in submarine USS SeawolfTemplate:WP Ships USS
instances, then under construction.[8] Carter completed a non-credit
introductory course in nuclear reactor power at Union College starting
in March 1953. This followed Carter's first-hand experience as part of
a group of American and Canadian servicemen who took part in cleaning
up after a nuclear meltdown at Canada's Chalk River Laboratories
reactor.[9][10]

Upon the death of his father, James Earl Carter, Sr., in July 1953,
however, Lieutenant Carter immediately resigned his commission, and he
was discharged from the Navy on October 9, 1953.[11][12] This cut
short his nuclear powerplant operator training, and he was never able
to serve on a nuclear submarine, since the first boat of that fleet,
the USS Nautilus, was launched on January 17, 1955, over a year after
his discharge from the Navy.[13]"

It appears that he saw only the worst side of nuclear. He also
couldn't pronounce the word properly, a thing which always amazed me.

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool