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.

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.

Thanks,

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

Thanks,

Wes

Do you need something precise, with documentation, etc.? If so, there are
lots of studies, using different methods of measurement. Search on "wind
power embedded energy," wind power embodied energy," or "wind power life
cycle analysis."

I did this a few years ago. At that time photovoltaic was showing a
worst-case payback of around 24 years, while wind power showed a payback in
6 months or even less.

Just grabbing one from a Google search, without checking it for accuracy,
here's something that shows how it's calculated and some specific numbers.
There are better studies that you can find, I'm su

www.rogerhelmer.com/sustainability.pdf

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

Thanks,

Wes

Do you need something precise, with documentation, etc.? If so, there are
lots of studies, using different methods of measurement. Search on "wind
power embedded energy," wind power embodied energy," or "wind power life
cycle analysis."

I did this a few years ago. At that time photovoltaic was showing a
worst-case payback of around 24 years, while wind power showed a payback
in 6 months or even less.

Just grabbing one from a Google search, without checking it for accuracy,
here's something that shows how it's calculated and some specific numbers.
There are better studies that you can find, I'm su

www.rogerhelmer.com/sustainability.pdf

--
When I analyzed small solar installations to be constructed under a
prevailing wage scenario, the installations generated such a small amount of
electricity that they would not even cover the interest on tax-free
municipal bonds, and that is after generous utility rebates and other aid
had been applied. Of course homeowners can get the panels installed for less
using small contractors employing illegal aliens. Wind power is only
feasible in areas where there is sustained wind available:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.r...nds/fig13.html

"ATP*" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

Thanks,

Wes

Do you need something precise, with documentation, etc.? If so, there are
lots of studies, using different methods of measurement. Search on "wind
power embedded energy," wind power embodied energy," or "wind power life
cycle analysis."

I did this a few years ago. At that time photovoltaic was showing a
worst-case payback of around 24 years, while wind power showed a payback
in 6 months or even less.

Just grabbing one from a Google search, without checking it for accuracy,
here's something that shows how it's calculated and some specific
numbers. There are better studies that you can find, I'm su

www.rogerhelmer.com/sustainability.pdf

--
When I analyzed small solar installations to be constructed under a
prevailing wage scenario, the installations generated such a small amount
of electricity that they would not even cover the interest on tax-free
municipal bonds, and that is after generous utility rebates and other aid
had been applied. Of course homeowners can get the panels installed for
less using small contractors employing illegal aliens. Wind power is only
feasible in areas where there is sustained wind available:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.r...nds/fig13.html

The cost issue is one thing, and the embedded energy can be quite different.
One thing to watch out for in the optimistic assessments of photovoltaics is
that they sometimes mix-and-match technologies. For example, I saw an audit
of monocrystalline photovoltaics, which make up most of today's
installations, that didn't include the energy cost of growing the
crystals/ingots. The rationale was that the cells are made from rejected
ingots from the semiconductor industry, and thus cost nothing in terms of
energy. ! Those ingots are a large part of the embedded energy in the
cells.

I also saw a quick energy payback claimed for thin-film photovoltaics, which
may or may not be true, but they used the 25-year lifetime figure often used
for monocrystalline cells. But apparently the thin-film cells, so far, have
much shorter lives.

So it pays to be careful in reading the evaluations. That's why I put the
disclaimer in that note to Wes, above. I'd want to see the complete
methodology and a detailed accounting of any report on photovoltaic payback.

In terms of dollars, most people acknowledge that they're a loser.

Wind, on the other hand, keeps looking better. I don't know enough to
evaluate the construction costs and so on, but the numbers from a variety of
sources look very promising. Of course, there are a lot of variables. So
far, the costs work out best when wind is just a small percentage of a
system's input.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"ATP*" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

Thanks,

Wes

Do you need something precise, with documentation, etc.? If so, there
are lots of studies, using different methods of measurement. Search on
"wind power embedded energy," wind power embodied energy," or "wind
power life cycle analysis."

I did this a few years ago. At that time photovoltaic was showing a
worst-case payback of around 24 years, while wind power showed a payback
in 6 months or even less.

Just grabbing one from a Google search, without checking it for
accuracy, here's something that shows how it's calculated and some
specific numbers. There are better studies that you can find, I'm su

www.rogerhelmer.com/sustainability.pdf

--
When I analyzed small solar installations to be constructed under a
prevailing wage scenario, the installations generated such a small amount
of electricity that they would not even cover the interest on tax-free
municipal bonds, and that is after generous utility rebates and other aid
had been applied. Of course homeowners can get the panels installed for
less using small contractors employing illegal aliens. Wind power is only
feasible in areas where there is sustained wind available:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.r...nds/fig13.html

The cost issue is one thing, and the embedded energy can be quite
different. One thing to watch out for in the optimistic assessments of
photovoltaics is that they sometimes mix-and-match technologies. For
example, I saw an audit of monocrystalline photovoltaics, which make up
most of today's installations, that didn't include the energy cost of
growing the crystals/ingots. The rationale was that the cells are made
from rejected ingots from the semiconductor industry, and thus cost
nothing in terms of energy. ! Those ingots are a large part of the
embedded energy in the cells.

I also saw a quick energy payback claimed for thin-film photovoltaics,
which may or may not be true, but they used the 25-year lifetime figure
often used for monocrystalline cells. But apparently the thin-film cells,
so far, have much shorter lives.

So it pays to be careful in reading the evaluations. That's why I put the
disclaimer in that note to Wes, above. I'd want to see the complete
methodology and a detailed accounting of any report on photovoltaic
payback.

In terms of dollars, most people acknowledge that they're a loser.

Wind, on the other hand, keeps looking better. I don't know enough to
evaluate the construction costs and so on, but the numbers from a variety
of sources look very promising. Of course, there are a lot of variables.
So far, the costs work out best when wind is just a small percentage of a
system's input.

--
Ed Huntress
I see now that the original question referred to energy input/payback, not
dollars. Hopefully we will see much greater efficiencies in the production
of solar cells as the technology evolves, which will reduce the cost and
energy input. The potential for improvement through innovation in solar
cells is probably much higher than in corn to ethanol. I think wind power
installations are a hideous blight on the environment, I don't see
technology changing that aspect much.

"ATP*" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"ATP*" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

Thanks,

Wes

Do you need something precise, with documentation, etc.? If so, there
are lots of studies, using different methods of measurement. Search on
"wind power embedded energy," wind power embodied energy," or "wind
power life cycle analysis."

I did this a few years ago. At that time photovoltaic was showing a
worst-case payback of around 24 years, while wind power showed a
payback in 6 months or even less.

Just grabbing one from a Google search, without checking it for
accuracy, here's something that shows how it's calculated and some
specific numbers. There are better studies that you can find, I'm su

www.rogerhelmer.com/sustainability.pdf

--
When I analyzed small solar installations to be constructed under a
prevailing wage scenario, the installations generated such a small
amount of electricity that they would not even cover the interest on
tax-free municipal bonds, and that is after generous utility rebates and
other aid had been applied. Of course homeowners can get the panels
installed for less using small contractors employing illegal aliens.
Wind power is only feasible in areas where there is sustained wind
available:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.r...nds/fig13.html

The cost issue is one thing, and the embedded energy can be quite
different. One thing to watch out for in the optimistic assessments of
photovoltaics is that they sometimes mix-and-match technologies. For
example, I saw an audit of monocrystalline photovoltaics, which make up
most of today's installations, that didn't include the energy cost of
growing the crystals/ingots. The rationale was that the cells are made
from rejected ingots from the semiconductor industry, and thus cost
nothing in terms of energy. ! Those ingots are a large part of the
embedded energy in the cells.

I also saw a quick energy payback claimed for thin-film photovoltaics,
which may or may not be true, but they used the 25-year lifetime figure
often used for monocrystalline cells. But apparently the thin-film cells,
so far, have much shorter lives.

So it pays to be careful in reading the evaluations. That's why I put the
disclaimer in that note to Wes, above. I'd want to see the complete
methodology and a detailed accounting of any report on photovoltaic
payback.

In terms of dollars, most people acknowledge that they're a loser.

Wind, on the other hand, keeps looking better. I don't know enough to
evaluate the construction costs and so on, but the numbers from a variety
of sources look very promising. Of course, there are a lot of variables.
So far, the costs work out best when wind is just a small percentage of a
system's input.

--
Ed Huntress
I see now that the original question referred to energy input/payback, not
dollars. Hopefully we will see much greater efficiencies in the production
of solar cells as the technology evolves, which will reduce the cost and
energy input. The potential for improvement through innovation in solar
cells is probably much higher than in corn to ethanol.

Like batteries for cars, its promise always seems to be just over the hill.
When I was doing new-materials research for Japan's MITI, back in 1981-82, I
was working with an MIT prof who had developed a phosphorescent-augmented
solar cell that was going to revolutionize the technology. It didn't, and I
learned a few lessons from that experience (I had reported it
enthusiastically g). One lesson is that the basic physics of solar cells
are pretty well wrapped up -- there's nowhere new to go. Another is that
this doesn't stop people from trying, and that many of them, including a lot
of college profs involved in research, are working a different side of the
street. They're after research money and investment dollars. They seem to
recognize that they're more or less playing in a sandbox.

There are new places to go with materials, however, and the thin-film
approaches are where the action is. Without studying it, my impression is
that they're looking for a magic potion that they can deposit in multiple
layers of different materials, which will involve low embedded energy and
fairly long life. Honda's CIG cell is one example. It looks like a layer
cake. Sony has a "dye-sensitized" cell that's still in early stages, and
there are in-situ electrolysis cells that generate hydrogen. As far as basic
science is concerned, there is action in biologicals, trying to strip down
the biochemistry of photosynthesis to some basics that can be synthesized.
The last two are not about generating electricity directly, but rather
towards producing an intermediate fuel.

It's been a frustrating half-century of research, IMO, filled with
disappointments and blind alleys. It's hard not to be cynical about it if
one has followed it with hope through all that time, as I did for a couple
of decades. Now I just sit back and wait.

I think wind power installations are a hideous blight on the environment,
I don't see technology changing that aspect much.

I think they're kind of inspiring. g We see some in Indiana, off to the
south of I-80, that I pass by a couple of times a year and they make my jaw
drop. There's a new project getting started here in NJ, with wind turbines
placed 10 miles or so off the coast. Present circumstances may leave it
stillborn, but I want to see it happen.

--
Ed Huntress

On Jan 18, 4:28*am, "ATP*" wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message

...



"ATP*" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

Thanks,

Wes

Do you need something precise, with documentation, etc.? If so, there
are lots of studies, using different methods of measurement. Search on
"wind power embedded energy," wind power embodied energy," or "wind
power life cycle analysis."

I did this a few years ago. At that time photovoltaic was showing a
worst-case payback of around 24 years, while wind power showed a payback
in 6 months or even less.

Just grabbing one from a Google search, without checking it for
accuracy, here's something that shows how it's calculated and some
specific numbers. There are better studies that you can find, I'm su

www.rogerhelmer.com/sustainability.pdf

--
When I analyzed small solar installations to be constructed under a
prevailing wage scenario, the installations generated such a small amount
of electricity that they would not even cover the interest on tax-free
municipal bonds, and that is after generous utility rebates and other aid
had been applied. Of course homeowners can get the panels installed for
less using small contractors employing illegal aliens. Wind power is only
feasible in areas where there is sustained wind available:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.r...nds/fig13.html

The cost issue is one thing, and the embedded energy can be quite
different. One thing to watch out for in the optimistic assessments of
photovoltaics is that they sometimes mix-and-match technologies. For
example, I saw an audit of monocrystalline photovoltaics, which make up
most of today's installations, that didn't include the energy cost of
growing the crystals/ingots. The rationale was that the cells are made
from rejected ingots from the semiconductor industry, and thus cost
nothing in terms of energy. ! Those ingots are a large part of the
embedded energy in the cells.

I also saw a quick energy payback claimed for thin-film photovoltaics,
which may or may not be true, but they used the 25-year lifetime figure
often used for monocrystalline cells. But apparently the thin-film cells,
so far, have much shorter lives.

So it pays to be careful in reading the evaluations. That's why I put the
disclaimer in that note to Wes, above. I'd want to see the complete
methodology and a detailed accounting of any report on photovoltaic
payback.

In terms of dollars, most people acknowledge that they're a loser.

Wind, on the other hand, keeps looking better. I don't know enough to
evaluate the construction costs and so on, but the numbers from a variety
of sources look very promising. Of course, there are a lot of variables..
So far, the costs work out best when wind is just a small percentage of a
system's input.

--
Ed Huntress

I see now that the original question referred to energy input/payback, not
dollars. Hopefully we will see much greater efficiencies in the production
of solar cells as the technology evolves, which will reduce the cost and
energy input. The potential for improvement through innovation in solar
cells is probably much higher than in corn to ethanol. I think wind power
installations are a hideous blight on the environment, I don't see
technology changing that aspect much.

Here is the problem with solar cells (PV cells). They convert only a
single wavelength of light. Someof that light slips through the cell.
When a reflector is placed behind the cell,it is able to convert
almost all of the energy of that particular wavelength of light to
electrical energy Some of the more efficient PV units are mixtures of
material that are able to convert two different wavelengths to
electrical energy. As designed, the PV cells are almost 100%
efficient.

However, the amount of energy from the sun at any specific wavelength
is not very much energy. This is the problem that must be overcome for
PV to be viable.

Paul

"ATP*" wrote:

Wind power is only
feasible in areas where there is sustained wind available:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.r...nds/fig13.html


From that it looks like the coastal areas of Michigan have a lot of potential. Since I
live in that state that is the part of your link that caught my interest.

Wes

You could try asking in alt.energy.homepower. A few of the posters
there have actual functioning hardware.

Jim Wilkins

Wes wrote:
From that it looks like the coastal areas of Michigan

And which OCEAN does Michigan border? :-) "coastal: along an ocean"

OH! You mean "Lakeshore" :-)

have a lot of potential. Since I
live in that state that is the part of your link that caught my interest.

Wes

...lew... (couldn't help my self) :-)

Lew Hartswick wrote:

OH! You mean "Lakeshore" :-)

Okay. You got me. I could try to quibble with this though

# Obsolete The frontier or border of a country.

"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...

Do you need something precise, with documentation, etc.? If so, there are
lots of studies, using different methods of measurement. Search on "wind
power embedded energy," wind power embodied energy," or "wind power life
cycle analysis."

I just need to get a rough idea if windmills are net energy plus and what the span is.


I did this a few years ago. At that time photovoltaic was showing a
worst-case payback of around 24 years, while wind power showed a payback in
6 months or even less.

Just grabbing one from a Google search, without checking it for accuracy,
here's something that shows how it's calculated and some specific numbers.
There are better studies that you can find, I'm su

www.rogerhelmer.com/sustainability.pdf

I googled a bit and didn't find something better yet. That one gave me a good enough idea
of inputs and how long to recover them.

Near the end where they break down financial payback was an added plus, saved me another
question. However, my googling shows estimated life of about 20 years for these
machines. About the time the project recovers the expendature it needs major renovation.

Of course getting longer life than estimates could happen and the designs are going to
improve over time as a body of experience is collected.

At least now I have something in my head to detect if someone is trying to run some bs on
me.


While googling I ran into this chart:
https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/images/LLN...y_Chart300.jpg showing energy inputs and where
they go. Notice how much waste is in electrical distribution.

https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/ The section of the site were this came from looks like it has
some interesting reading material.

I notice that there assumptions for next few decades have coal as an energy source. I
guess they didn't get the memo.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...

Do you need something precise, with documentation, etc.? If so, there are
lots of studies, using different methods of measurement. Search on "wind
power embedded energy," wind power embodied energy," or "wind power life
cycle analysis."

I just need to get a rough idea if windmills are net energy plus and what
the span is.


I did this a few years ago. At that time photovoltaic was showing a
worst-case payback of around 24 years, while wind power showed a payback
in
6 months or even less.

Just grabbing one from a Google search, without checking it for accuracy,
here's something that shows how it's calculated and some specific numbers.
There are better studies that you can find, I'm su

www.rogerhelmer.com/sustainability.pdf

I googled a bit and didn't find something better yet. That one gave me a
good enough idea
of inputs and how long to recover them.

Near the end where they break down financial payback was an added plus,
saved me another
question. However, my googling shows estimated life of about 20 years
for these
machines. About the time the project recovers the expendature it needs
major renovation.

Of course getting longer life than estimates could happen and the designs
are going to
improve over time as a body of experience is collected.

At least now I have something in my head to detect if someone is trying to
run some bs on
me.


While googling I ran into this chart:
https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/images/LLN...y_Chart300.jpg showing energy
inputs and where
they go. Notice how much waste is in electrical distribution.

Yeah, it sounds like distribution is the problem that's holding up a lot of
possibilities. Somebody has to solve that (not to make big improvements in
efficiency, necessarily, but just to make it possible to transmit power over
long distances in the US -- politics and regulation are big impediments) or
wind and large-scale solar are going nowhere. Not that I ever expect them to
be a dominant source of power, but they could be significant.


https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/ The section of the site were this came from
looks like it has
some interesting reading material.

I notice that there assumptions for next few decades have coal as an
energy source. I
guess they didn't get the memo.

Wes

I'm looking forward to seeing if my prediction made 20 years ago comes to
pass. I predicted then that more nuclear fission was inevitable, that it
would eventually dominate our electricity generation, with wind and/or solar
being mostly of local application in a few areas. My heart sunk when Three
Mile Island put the final nail in fission's coffin for at least a
generation. I hope I live long enough to see something happen.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
My heart sunk when Three
Mile Island put the final nail in fission's coffin for at least a
generation. I hope I live long enough to see something happen.


There's some new designs proposed and actually being built, that are
failsafe in that the safety mechanism is built in and relies on the law
of physics, not human judgment to control a runaway. Hardly an
exhaustive search, but this was the first Google hit I looked at:
http://www.me.utexas.edu/~ans/info/reactor4.htm

One of the more interesting facts in the site above is that coal fired
plants routinely release more radioactive particles than any nuclear
facility.
I think when things get tight enough, attitudes are going to change.
I too hope to live long enough to see safe nuclear power live up to it's
promise.


Jon

"Jon Anderson" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
My heart sunk when Three Mile Island put the final nail in fission's
coffin for at least a generation. I hope I live long enough to see
something happen.


There's some new designs proposed and actually being built, that are
failsafe in that the safety mechanism is built in and relies on the law of
physics, not human judgment to control a runaway. Hardly an exhaustive
search, but this was the first Google hit I looked at:
http://www.me.utexas.edu/~ans/info/reactor4.htm

Yeah, but note that the article is 18 years old. A few things have happened
since. The French apparently are using a breeder technology now that
produces a non-weaponable reprocessed product, rather than plutonium. And my
very limited understanding is that the action now is in designing a
universal, modular power plant. It will be much easier to control, build,
train for, etc. And the red-tape approval stage should be slashed to a
fraction of its present, miserable state.

All in all, it sounds to me like we're ready for it. What we need is a whole
new national attitude.

One of the more interesting facts in the site above is that coal fired
plants routinely release more radioactive particles than any nuclear
facility.
I think when things get tight enough, attitudes are going to change.

I hope so, and I hope it doesn't require a depression or political coercion
from some tin-pot dictatorship to accomplish it.

I too hope to live long enough to see safe nuclear power live up to it's
promise.

Well, have a drink for me if you make it and I don't. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...


While googling I ran into this chart:
https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/images/LLN...y_Chart300.jpg showing energy
inputs and where
they go. Notice how much waste is in electrical distribution.

Yeah, it sounds like distribution is the problem that's holding up a lot of
possibilities. Somebody has to solve that (not to make big improvements in
efficiency, necessarily, but just to make it possible to transmit power over
long distances in the US -- politics and regulation are big impediments) or
wind and large-scale solar are going nowhere. Not that I ever expect them to
be a dominant source of power, but they could be significant.

Yes, you got it. Distribution has a lot of waste and a lot of the wind potential is not
where the loads are. At least wind farms are not a total waste of time and money.

Here is a picture of the grid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Un...sPowerGrid.jpg

There isn't much capacity where the wind is currently if you look at the above and then
the you provided earlier.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.r...nds/fig13.html






https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/ The section of the site were this came from
looks like it has
some interesting reading material.

I notice that there assumptions for next few decades have coal as an
energy source. I
guess they didn't get the memo.

Wes

I'm looking forward to seeing if my prediction made 20 years ago comes to
pass. I predicted then that more nuclear fission was inevitable, that it
would eventually dominate our electricity generation, with wind and/or solar
being mostly of local application in a few areas. My heart sunk when Three
Mile Island put the final nail in fission's coffin for at least a
generation. I hope I live long enough to see something happen.

TMI and that damn movie did a huge amount of damage. Chernobyl, a reactor that would
never be built in the US or any western country did a fine job of shoving the corpse back
into the coffin when some of the hysteria wore off.

I believe in nuclear generation, we have learned so much now that current technology so
much safer than what was at TMI. I've said before and I'll say it again, give me decent
rates and you can put it next door.

You can put a nuclear plant near where the loads are. Likely easier than moving loads to
where the wind is.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...


While googling I ran into this chart:
https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/images/LLN...y_Chart300.jpg showing energy
inputs and where
they go. Notice how much waste is in electrical distribution.

Yeah, it sounds like distribution is the problem that's holding up a lot
of
possibilities. Somebody has to solve that (not to make big improvements in
efficiency, necessarily, but just to make it possible to transmit power
over
long distances in the US -- politics and regulation are big impediments)
or
wind and large-scale solar are going nowhere. Not that I ever expect them
to
be a dominant source of power, but they could be significant.

Yes, you got it. Distribution has a lot of waste and a lot of the wind
potential is not
where the loads are. At least wind farms are not a total waste of time
and money.

Here is a picture of the grid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Un...sPowerGrid.jpg

There isn't much capacity where the wind is currently if you look at the
above and then
the you provided earlier.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.r...nds/fig13.html

It looks like the patient is suffering from a degenerative circulatory
disease.



https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/ The section of the site were this came from
looks like it has
some interesting reading material.

I notice that there assumptions for next few decades have coal as an
energy source. I
guess they didn't get the memo.

Wes

I'm looking forward to seeing if my prediction made 20 years ago comes to
pass. I predicted then that more nuclear fission was inevitable, that it
would eventually dominate our electricity generation, with wind and/or
solar
being mostly of local application in a few areas. My heart sunk when Three
Mile Island put the final nail in fission's coffin for at least a
generation. I hope I live long enough to see something happen.

TMI and that damn movie did a huge amount of damage. Chernobyl, a reactor
that would
never be built in the US or any western country did a fine job of shoving
the corpse back
into the coffin when some of the hysteria wore off.

Yes, but there's another side to the story. A nuclear expert says the movie
may have contributed to making nuclear power safer. Unless I'm mistaken,
Larry currently is reading a book written by this guy:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.co...-a-guest-post/


I believe in nuclear generation, we have learned so much now that current
technology so
much safer than what was at TMI. I've said before and I'll say it again,
give me decent
rates and you can put it next door.

You can put a nuclear plant near where the loads are. Likely easier than
moving loads to
where the wind is.

Wes

Yup. I see no way around a vast increase in our use of nuclear power, at
least within 30 years or so.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:16:40 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

I'm looking forward to seeing if my prediction made 20 years ago comes to
pass. I predicted then that more nuclear fission was inevitable, that it
would eventually dominate our electricity generation, with wind and/or solar
being mostly of local application in a few areas. My heart sunk when Three
Mile Island put the final nail in fission's coffin for at least a
generation. I hope I live long enough to see something happen.

TMI was the next to last nail. Chernobyl was the last.

Of the 4,000 children who developed thyroid cancer in the USSR after
Chernobyl, only 10 died, and they died only because Russian medical
people weren't prepared for it. Adding the soldiers and firefighters
who went into the known extremely radioactive areas to put out fires,
the total number of dead is still benign compared to the global
reaction to the accident: generational paranoia. But both of these
proved that the China Syndrome could never happen. The meltdowns were
self-limiting.

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

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:16:40 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

I'm looking forward to seeing if my prediction made 20 years ago comes to
pass. I predicted then that more nuclear fission was inevitable, that it
would eventually dominate our electricity generation, with wind and/or
solar
being mostly of local application in a few areas. My heart sunk when Three
Mile Island put the final nail in fission's coffin for at least a
generation. I hope I live long enough to see something happen.

TMI was the next to last nail. Chernobyl was the last.

Of the 4,000 children who developed thyroid cancer in the USSR after
Chernobyl, only 10 died, and they died only because Russian medical
people weren't prepared for it. Adding the soldiers and firefighters
who went into the known extremely radioactive areas to put out fires,
the total number of dead is still benign compared to the global
reaction to the accident: generational paranoia. But both of these
proved that the China Syndrome could never happen. The meltdowns were
self-limiting.

Well, there are several arguments implicit in that paragraph, and they
aren't necessarily compatible.

They boil down to this: You know as well as anyone that there are bad ways
to die, and there are scary ways to die. Dying because you hit a garbage
truck in your car is a bad way to die. Dying because of something you can't
see, that you know is penetrating your body and that you can't escape it,
that you don't know IF or WHEN it's penetrating your body, and whether it's
triggering a cancer or just passing through on its way to the center of the
Earth, is a scary way to die. Rather, I should say it's a scary way to
*think* about dying.

It's something like the gun-control argument. You aren't going to settle
that argument by means of rational statistics. You're dealing with a scary,
mysterious and evil thing that comes right out of a horror movie -- while
you're celebrating Christmas dinner with your family.

I don't know what it will take to change attitudes. Dismissive arguments,
though, aren't it.

--
Ed Huntress

"We should have a recession. People who spend their lives pounding nails in
Nevada need something else to do." John Cochrane, Univ. of Chicago professor
of economics, Nov. 2008

I don't know how much energy is consumed manufacturing wind mills

The windmills being installed in Iowa and Minnesota;
$1 billion per 62 qty.
9-11 years payback
every 5 years a major overhaul.

I got this info from a nephew who works for the former NSP (northern
states power).

I don't know how this cost jives with any others, post in this thread.


On Jan 17, 7:01 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message

...



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.

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.

Thanks,

Wes

Do you need something precise, with documentation, etc.? If so, there are
lots of studies, using different methods of measurement. Search on "wind
power embedded energy," wind power embodied energy," or "wind power life
cycle analysis."

I did this a few years ago. At that time photovoltaic was showing a
worst-case payback of around 24 years, while wind power showed a payback in
6 months or even less.

Just grabbing one from a Google search, without checking it for accuracy,

There are a number of windy areas in the world and many in the south west
and other places. One of the first was in southern California - gap towards
Nevada. There are unique designs now that are verticle and horizontal turbines.
They have promise. They are used in big city canyons and roof tops...

Solar Cells have a problem with the clouds. I would get 6 months of use at
about 50% loading and the rest of the time in the 20's. That is a 250,000 USD
design. Only if I were mega rich would I spend that kind of money for some
power.

Their issue is they don't see UV light at all. If UV then most of the time they
would work. Another issue

Martin

Wes wrote:
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.

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.

Thanks,

Wes

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?


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.

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.

--
If we all did the things we are capable of doing,
we would literally astound ourselves.
-- Thomas A. Edison

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.


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.


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.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

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

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
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.

--
That whole era was rather anti-"nucular". In NY, even conservative
Republicans were against nuclear power and wouldn't allow the completed
Shoreham power plant to operate. I knew a guy who worked at the plant for
ten years, while they were building and low power testing it, and then they
mothballed it.

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


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.

--
If we all did the things we are capable of doing,
we would literally astound ourselves.
-- Thomas A. Edison

I'm going to guess that maybe President Carter, who was trained in nuclear
technology, maybe he knew something that you and I didn't?



http://www.kndo.com/Global/story.asp...v=menu484_2_10


Hanford Toxic Burial Ground Cleaned Up Near the Columbia River


HANFORD, Wash-- One of the most hazardous Hanford burial grounds along the
Columbia River has been cleaned up.

Cleaning up the 618-7 burial ground at Hanford was a very difficult process.
Clean-up staff had very little records about what was underground. It was three
trenches and between 1960 to 1973 the site received nuclear fuel waste.

This is part of the careful cleanup of 800 barrels of toxic waste. Hanford
officials say a milestone is reached that holds true to the Tri-Party Agreement.

"We found a lot of unknowns and a lot more material than we expected. We handled
that very well and completed the project on time," said Dave Brockman, Manager
of the Richland Hanford Office.

Clean-up of the burial site cost more than $20 million. The Environmental
Protection Agency oversaw the process and says it went smoothly.

"It's probably the most challenging waste site that they have done at Hanford to
date and they've shown that they can meet this challenge and do it," said Dave
Einan, EPA.

Some of the trenches contained chips of zircaloy which can easily ignite. Most
of the waste came from Hanford's fabrication and research facilities. Before
removal, samples needed to be tested to see what type of materials they were.

"You anticipate what's going to happen, you create a series of boundaries, and
you go step by step by step by step very carefully, then stop and you go back
and evaluate," said Chuck Spencer, Rresident of Washington Closure Hanford.

During excavation of the trenches, last August a small fire broke out but there
was no injuries or contamination spread.

"It was a very hazardous project but we have more hazardous one's to come. We
learned a lot from this now we fell we're ready to move on to a couple more,"
said Brockman.

The next clean up project is a site north of this burial ground and another one
that's near Energy Northwest. After this site was cleaned, which took about a
year, workers had removed 180-thousand tons of waste.

I put a huge amount of personal energy into windmill electrical
generation between 1982 and 1984.

Your results are very dependent on the wind in your area.

The wind power available is proportional to the cube of the wind
speed.
If the wind is too low, you shut down.
If the wind is too high, you shut down.
If the wind is just right, you convert power.

The Seattle are is a terrible place for wind generation.
The wind is mostly too high or too low.

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:24:49 -0500, Wes wrote:

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.

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.

Thanks,

Wes

Hi Wes,

Being as this is a do-it-yourself kind of newsgroup I checked out
http://www.otherpower.com/otherpower_wind.shtml. It has a fair bit of
information on constructing a windmill at home, including some
discussion of a 2 kW unit that should, if one is connected to the
grid, reduce electric bills to roughly zero. Cost of construction is
variable but there will be at least a few hundred dollars in magnets
even if one is able to scrounge most of the other hardware. I'd
probably have had to tuck about $2-3000 into the project to get it
finished.

However... there were two rather large problems for me personally in
carrying out such a project, which is why I didn't go for it.

First, my location in western KY is lousy for wind power.

Second, erecting a 50 foot item in my backyard might get some notice
from the neighbors.

Third, that tower would be the tallest object for at least several
hundred yards around. Lightning is not your friend when it's close
by...

Anyway, my two cents on the topic. I'd love to give it a shot if we
lived someplace where wind was a viable option.

Best -- Terry

Wind power solutions

With the world’s ever-increasing demand of power being more than its
supply, it is about time that we take concrete steps to save power.
Apart from being conscious about the usage of power and water at home,
one can employ pollution-free and cost-effective power solutions at
our homes. Solar power solutions and wind power solutions are the two
of the most efficient solutions that can replace the conventional
power solutions employed at our homes.

These solutions can help you combat power outages, reduce your
electricity bills, and also help the environment.

This article will explore the cost-effective wind power solution that
you can employ at home.

Wind power solutions work best when the following conditions are met:
• You have a house or farmhouse spread over a big area. Typically,
wind power solutions are employed in areas that spread over an acre.
• The average wind speed in your area is around 11 miles per hour. If
you stay in a place that has little wind flow, your system will not
work. Consult an expert before installing the wind power solution at
home.
• You need to draw water from external sources. You can install a wind
power system even when you do not need to draw water from outside.
However, if you need to draw water from outside on a regular basis, a
wind power system offers the best solution.
• Your house needs a lot of uninterrupted power supply. Combating
those power outages is easy with the pollution-free wind power
systems. You need no longer worry about a break in your work because
of a power uncertainty.

A typical wind power system comprises of a tower and five blades to
churn out wind energy. The length of the wind tower varies depending
on the location of your house. You may need a longer tower if you are
in low-wind zone; you can work with a shorter tower if you live by the
beach. Using a wind generator, this wind energy can be converted into
useful electrical energy to be employed at home for running various
electrical appliances. You can even store the power generated for
later use, making wind generators more efficient than convention power
systems.

If you are confused with the wind power jargon, here’s a piece of
information for you. The terms, wind mills, wind turbines, and wind
generators are used to refer to the same machine.

Make power at home with solar and wind energy to eliminate your power
bill. Get our complete guide at http://www.EarthEnergyToday.com

You guys are going about it all wrong.
You are all trying to generate electricity from wind power.
Then use the electricity to drive stuff.
I think that's very ineffective.

Use the wind to drive stuff directly.
Like this...
http://www.travelistic.com/video/sho...Columbia-River

Clean, efficient, environmentally sound.

And the girls dress a lot better!