Eco nuts need to learn math and how to properly apply it. They all too often undercut their own cause by either proposing "green" solutions that are vastly less efficient than what they are trying to replace, or by demanding things that are economically idiotic.
My favorite is getting plastic grocery bags banned, while not doing a thing to reduce the vastly greater amounts of plastic used in the packaging contained inside.
What an interesting idea, we all know how hot the AC is, a whole lot of energy indeed. Thanks for posting Phillo! Think of the thousands of square miles of highways, this could be a game changer.
My favorite is getting plastic grocery bags banned, while not doing a thing to reduce the vastly greater amounts of plastic used in the packaging contained inside.
At least the eco-nuts know how to get the ball rolling.
Yeah Ron lets maintain the status quo. Drill baby drill.
Pfffffft,
You don't see the benefits of the bigger picture.
If you lived in the 19th century you would no doubt demand we hunted all the whales to keep your whale oil lamp burning. It's the 21st century why not join it.
I had dinner last week with an old friend who was huge in the electric car
business technically speaking. He agreed that electric cars are unjustifiably
polluting in terms of making the batteries.
Plastic grocery bags that are cooked at high temperatures are proven to be the cheapest, most efficient hydrogen storage cells that out perform anything yet discovered...
The ban on plastic bags just went into effect over here in Hawaii.
The reason we did it here is because they blow into the ocean and fish and turtles and other creatures either get tangled in them or ingest them. It was a bit of a hassel at first to remember your re usable bags, but after a while no big thing.
I have built three school buildings, with over 25,000 square ft combined , that are suppling all thier electricity with solar and selling the surplus back to the local utility. I would say the panels took up less then 50% of the roof space.
A lot of solar companies now offer leases where they put in the system for free, and then just charge you your normal monthly electric bill.
After a certian time,, like 7 years, you own the system.
The county building dept here , is overwhelmed with permits requesting solar panel installation's. This island only has 170,000 people but they are getting 30 or 40 applications for solar systems a week.
That is close to 2000 per year..
The hardest part of all this is to get the local utility companies to accept all this energy flowing back thru thier infastructure. They can make more , if they supply the power themselves.
Interesting times we live in...
20 % of our energy comes from a geo thermal plant here on the Big island.
Nice thread Philo. I'm so stoked to see what happens with tech over the next 10-15 years. Not only with solar, but also with medical. They are on the verge of so many breakthroughs right now - its really an exciting time.
thanks Philo, good stuff-seems like there is solutions out there for our problems, if we can just get these ideas implemented...
interesting info, John Hansen... a ban on plastic bags sounds like a great start, and it just forces people to change one little habit (bringing your own bags). In fact, I haven't been perfect on that one, and now I am going to bring my own reusable cloth bags from here on out... packing them in the car as we speak...
Interesting how the Governor thinks the current tax breaks are fiscally unsustainable. Sounds like it was fun while it lasted. Now the state can figure out how to pay for all those lost revenues. Maybe they can blame the big corporations they are giving the breaks to... If the are still in business. Probably will need to raise taxes. It is all smoke and mirrors!
We'll see later, I suppose. It could be so awesome just to be there to find out.
What's the deal with a switch-over, Philo? Oil to diodes, I mean. I foresee War, Plague, Famine, and Disease: the horse's revenge, like. Worst case, though.
I figure about twenty million dead here in the USA (US of Automobiles)before they/you give up their/your death machines that run on dead animals and plants? More? More yet?
One thing, should the government see their/our way clear to implement glass roads, they/we then could put squads of those pesky homeless folks to work-Caltramps--with long-handled squeegees, baby strollers full of old newpapers, and Indian pumps full of Windex.
In a brief O.T. aside to Mr. Hansen (Aloha), can you tell us if on the high peaks above the treeline on the Big Island, are there any rodents living there resembling marmots? I've always wondered about that.
Solar is old tech too. The newest cutting edge tech is infrared band and it is embedded into stickers which can wirelessly transmit power! Very cool. Still in the labs, but imagine!! Any surface can be turned into a power cell!!
I've had a particularly fascinating week or two, in the green arena.
First, a talk by the mayor of LA and former mayor of Toronto. Very interesting perspectives. Because Mayors are closer to the action, they often can do more than Gov's or Presidents. For example:
The US has not signed the Kyoto Protocol on the reduction of greenhouse gases.....but Los Angeles HAS, and has met the standards!
In fact, LA has accomplished some amazing things. It is using the same amount of water as it used 20 years ago, through good practices. It recycles/reuses/composts 75% of the trash stream, from it's baseline.
On friday, I attended an all day conference on "Cool Roofs", something increasing adopted by cities across the country....NYC is a leader in this.
Commercial replacements with cool roofs have a payback of 5 years.
New roofs basically cost little to nothing.
Or the new rage: White roofs. This is not voodoo, it is scientifically proven.
That is the point, that there are better ways. Strange that some feel anything new and different should be denigrated in favor of a failed status quo. Fortunately he foolish will follow along with the future.
At least the eco-nuts know how to get the ball rolling.
Sobriety is needed to prevent the ball from rolling in the wrong direction.
Sadly, they squander their excitement and credibility all too often.
I've had them claim we all need to switch to veggie oil powered cars. The technology is here! Break free of big oil! The sentiment is great, their math isn't. Veggie oil works great for the <<1% who can take advantage of the cast off used fryer oil. Beyond that, it does not scale. Once you start farming rapeseed just to burn in a car, it becomes a net environmental negative (more diesel used to farm than biofuel produced). Wasting political capital on dead end ideas that could be shown as such with the vaguest analysis is very counterproductive.
I really like seeing "green" home makeovers where folks rip out perfectly good counter tops and put in "green" concrete ones that can be recycled later. WTF? The obliviousness boggles the mind.
The point is that cheer leading should only be encouraged to a point. Once laws start getting drafted based on enthusiasm of hippies regardless of the actual environmental math, you are likely causing more harm than good.
I've always liked this demonstration (see below) of the clean, renewable energy (at least for the next 5 B yrs or so) and the amazing power of the Sun.
Sun, that Fusion Nuclear Reactor that is safely 93 million miles away from us that provides all the energy we ever need, and with a massive surplus, for our corner of the Universe.
The power (P = W/t) of the Sun from a 2m area here at the surface of the Earth ...
Or, how Will Gadd (climber/paragider pilot) and others can fly paragliders and hang gliders hundreds of miles from the power of the Sun heating the land --> land heating the air mass above --> and thereby launching thermals and wind events throughout the boundary layer of the atmosphere. We can thoughtfully harness this energy and travel hundreds of miles. Pretty darn cool.
The future won't be so bright if the engineers who build solar roadways use LEDs (as shown in the picture) where there ought to be photovoltaics.
Also a big issue with solar panels is keeping them clean. They lose efficiency fast when they get dirty. I just shake my head when I see all the new solar farms out in the desert where there is no water to clean the surfaces.
That idea of putting them over canals looks good. You have a water source built in for periodic cleaning, and since mostly you will be removing wind blown sand and dust the water ought to be able to go right back into the canal.
Regarding the roads idea, what are the common characteristics of a good pavement surface (i.e. load bearing, good traction, durable, easily repairable via low tech, etc.,)and the optimal properties of the surface of a solar panel?
And then of course, the vehicles which use the road make shade. So only roads where there is very little traffic need apply? I ask because it should be obvious that the most efficient use of solar power is locally in urban areas where 1: it is needed and consumed the most and 2: less power is wasted by losses over long distance transmission lines. Remember that photovoltaics produce direct current which must be converted to alternating current - not a lossless process - before it can be safely and efficiently transmitted via long distance high tension lines.
Do these questions make me a knuckle dragging troglidite?
Covering more than 1% of the land with solar panels will likely cause detectable changes in ecosystems and services, and possibly some local weather conditions.
Surely covering more than 10% would fuk things up pretty good.
10,000 times the world's energy needs * 20% efficiency * 10% of the world covered in solar panels = 200 times the world's energy needs.
Still pretty good, but irrelevant over the long run when the world's energy "consumption" increases by what, 20% every couple decades? In 200 years the sun will barely be meeting our needs and I'm sure there will be substantial collateral damage from covering 10% of the earth with solar panels.
Actually Guyman they can put wave generator systems on floating platforms out at sea well away from estuaries.
Nothing is perfect certainly not what we are doing now. The technologies and systems will rapidly develop and improve as we move inexorably in that direction.
But most would have to agree that belching hydrocarbons into our atmosphere is unsustainable.
So Naysayers, educate yourselves before you knee jerk with negativity.
For example the comment was made about solar roads that they should use PV cells not LED lights.
Well if they had taken 30 more seconds to investigate rather than opine unwittingly they would have found the LED lights in the artists rendition are for signage and lane markers not electrical generation. The PV system is there if you look.
But most would have to agree that belching hydrocarbons into our atmosphere is unsustainable.
Don't know about MOST, certainly SOME.
Some of those have $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ intrest in new ways to get more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ from whomever.
Im not pro-pollution if you wish to know, BTW.
I just have whitnessed lots of BS slinging by folks who wish to get me to pay more for things.
so go look at some of the observations about the decline of Big Birds in the vicinity of wind farms. Go to North Palm Springs... down wind of the farms.... sand dunes where their were none before, and desert stripped of its soil down wind....
Like said before, no free lunch, everything is in a balance. A balance that WE have little understanding of.
And yes, the future is going to be awsome cause people make it so.
Think of how many jobs could be created rebuilding infrastructure for the green revolution of the 21st century. If you watch the solar road vid they have thought of a great many details including repurposing land fill waste and old tires by shredding them and using it in the the base layer. What a great place for land fill. AND, no more need for unsightly and dangerous overhead wires. All of it could be integrated into the shoulders. Brilliant.
Think of how many jobs could be created rebuilding infrastructure for the green revolution of the 21st century.
Yes. One of our biggest failures as a country as far as I'm concerned. Where are the "job creators" who need to get behind this? That's right, stuck in the muck of "bigger is better" and lost in the notion of "economies of scale."
No way a big company is going to do the necessary retrofitting... instead they propose huge solar farms covering fragile desert ecosystems.
Ksolem and Moof raise some interesting points about the silliness of some of these ideas. Imagine carless highways kept clean by platoons of idiotic greens slobering all over their imaginary futures. Or imagine the waste of the multitudes who rip out and landfill the old while installing the latest and greatest renewable "smart home" features as fast as new generations of the I-phone. Makes a lot of sense doesn't it?
Out in the middle of Nevada,in a desert valley ten miles from Tonopah,stands a 640 tall steel reinforced concrete tower. This and some ten thousnd parabolic mirrors focused on it represents the worlds largest Molten Salt Tower energy project. When it's completed it is slated to produce up to 110 megawatts of 24 hour power since the molten (1100 degree) degree salt is stored during lightless hours in huge underground insulated tanks. The molten salt heat exchanges with water which produces steam that drives conventional efficient modern turbines. Uncle Harry Reid secured nearly a billion dollars of loan federal loan guarantees for the project. Keep watch folks, it will either turn out to be a huge success or another Solyndra. At this point i'm optimistic that the biggest drawback to solar (only power when the sunshines or inefficient and highly polluting battery storage) might have a good first solution.
Why denigrate?Are these ideas silly?
People ripping out and landfilling for the next great thing,that happens in a large way right now.Carpenters gotta eat ,like everybody else.No new wave of huge changes will happen,Nor will they affect the way we manage waste presently.These kinds of changes[alt.energy]are already their own economy,why condemn jobs?
Do you trust the present energy industries,we subsidize them.Why cant we have growth in other industries we barely support in comparison.Does an overwhelming majority have interest in fossil fuel energy?
What of the other 98%of the DOE's subsidized buiseness? ever mentioned?
Companies fail.
The negativity/debunking are connected to the money trail,hence the naysayers.....It is funny.I have friends who grow for a biodiesel company,they get paid by them,no subsides.We used to pay them to turn their crops under.
Been using batteries in a solar system for 10 years.Their is no such thing as "highly polluting battery storage".When the battery industry stops asking for 10 bucks a used core,we might see one on the side of the road,till then,not.Larger units bring more coin.Highly recyclable
Keep those good ,silly,high potential ideas coming ,Philo
And for keeping those roads clean,Weve got inmates
You guys must admit the solar highway system is idiotic and people who rip and throw half their existing house away to be "in" with the latest green trends are wasteful. I gave you an example, with the molten salt tower, of something scaled up into new realms that might just work or become a boondoggle.Yes, their is no longer a need to subsidize any facet of the energy industry.This includes everything from oil field depletion credits, to stranded gas credits, to solar,wind, or biofuel subsidies. The government should get out of the way with all subsidies and over burdensome regulations and simply enforce the common sense rules and laws on the books while eliminating regulation designed simply to stifle one industry in favor of another. A polluter is a polluter and it doesn't take a division of lawyers and rocket scientists to determine that. Let the best technology prevail.
Apparently cheap fuel is on the horizon. Good or bad, you be the judge. I predict it will be a huge opportunity for our great government to add additional taxes. That will be all fun and games until fuel prices rise and we are paying European prices for gas.
No Rick I for one do not have to agree that the Solar Road concept is ridiculous. I think it is a brilliant and elegant solution to many problems. Watch the TED Talk video before poopooing a good idea.
Ok Philo, please explain to all exactly how a glass surfaced road will withstand the rigors of high impact usage and still efficiently produce power.How do you clean it, how do you repair it, what do you apply to the surface for traction in rain and snow,what are its costs comparisons to conventional roadways, is their more or less carbon and pollutants produced by its construction than conventional roads?
Well to begin with conventional roads are already made mostly of petrochemicals and ground up rock climbs.
I can't tell you how "exactly" how it will be done because I am a cartoonist electrician not an engineer. I only know saying it can't be done is akin to telling ancient mariners they would sail off the edge of the Earth. Famous last words if you will.
I agree and understand there are technical challenges still to be faced. But they will be faced. Smarter folks than us are looking to it now. I find that encouraging.
Or are you saying you like the pot holed status quo?
Eventually the solar roads will be made of easily replaceable panels. Right now they are producing 12' X 12' panels.
Being heated like a window defroster all but the worst blizzards will clear automatically. And the road bed can be able to self sense and warn travelers of conditions with LED surface signage imbedded in the road.
They will start with (i believe they already have) parking areas and such that do not take such strains and stresses as Interstate crashes of semi tractor trailers but they have incorporated these parameters into their thinking. Research is progressing to develop new materials all the time. Glass is a incredibly versatile material capable of fantastic applications. Give the tech a chance. And what a great place for otherwise land choking land fill.
Ol' Alva had to make the materials to prove what others said couldn't be done. But I bet most people don't use whale oil lamps anymore and only use candles for birthdays and mood setting.
Damn that Edison he put the wane on wax.
Same goes for the school drop out who to the chagrin of the world that told him it couldn't be done figured out how to produce continuous seamless copper tubing.
An as a side point think of all the jobs revamping our infrastructure would create.
Ahh, you are an eternal optimist Philo, but i've been hearing about solar shingles for 15 years now and they are still prohibitively expensive compared even to conventional panels-just a relatively low tech comparison to the solar highway dream.
Rick,when i first installed solar panels[somebody else's house]in 83,they were 2 to 3 times more expensive than they are now,production/engineering lowers cost. just sayin
Solar shingles,pricey yes,long term payback yes,energy prices up over 100%in the last 30years.Shingles last 30 years,some easy math means they are a bargain
Opponents of renewable energy like to focus the intermittent and therefore unreliable nature of sources like wind and solar. Siemens has addressed this issue by developing advanced hydrogen storage technology to capture excess energy for later use. http://tinyurl.com/cwuncdd
So Naysayers, educate yourselves before you knee jerk with negativity.
For example the comment was made about solar roads that they should use PV cells not LED lights.
Well if they had taken 30 more seconds to investigate rather than opine unwittingly they would have found the LED lights in the artists rendition are for signage and lane markers not electrical generation. The PV system is there if you look.
Easy duz it there Philo... I am far from a naysayer re solar power. But I do try to look at things in terms of practicality. For example I think it is silly to cover hundreds and thousands of acres of desert with solar panels located hundreds of miles from where the power is needed when the more urban areas have huge areas of rooftops we are not using yet.
I also do not think it is a knee jerk negative reaction to question the solar road idea. Its one of those ideas which looks nice on paper. But roads in cities, where the majority of power is consumed, are usually covered with these things called cars and trucks which make shade. In rural areas where there is less traffic, roads cover a very tiny fraction of the surface.
The solar energy application which interests me for large scale power generation is not solar PV panels. Rather, using mirrors to focus sunlight to superheat liquid sodium to spin turbines. Kind of like a nuclear reactor with the dangerous part almost 93 million miles away.
And FWIW the pic you posted shows no PVs, only a layer of LEDs.
Yes Ksolem, they are in fact constructing a large scale molten salt (sodium) tower outside Tonopah Nevada right now. Look it up-its called Crescent Dunes. The only problem is that it has the usual government loan guarantees and successive layers of newly minted corporations filtering the money through a consortium of chinese and Spanish entities doing the construction. You would think it could be wholly american constructed project.It is slated for startup late this year or early next. It will be interesting to see if it is a boom or boondoggle.
Pretty soon itll be magic flying vehicles that gps to your chosen locale in a straight b line. Solar powered -it will emit no fumes or waste of any kind... Ohw crap,, kinda like the JETTSONS!
And again I say take a closer look at the info and not just a glance at a picture.
You posted a flawed picture with no link. And you opened the thread with an insulting remark stating that anyone who questions your great wisdom is a knuckle dragging troglodyte. I then try to explain my support for intelligent use of solar energy (not in roadways) which you ignore.
The "mouth breathing knuckle dragging troglodyte" comment was not directed at any one in particular. It was meant as a generic comment about nay-sayers who make ignorant comments like "you can't drive a car with a wind mill on it". It has been months since I have posted a snarky derogatory comment at anyone on ST. If you want to feel associated that is your choice. It does seem too be all to common on ST to read only enough to form an uninformed opinion.
you, and all the other anti-fossil fuels gang, can live the dream right now...you can all take yourselves off the grid right now...do it...convert to solar and wind
just think how much healthier the planet would be and how much more "awesome" your lives would be if all of you make the commitment
report back in a year and show us all the awesomeness we're missing while we remain enslaved to fossil fuels
Just finished up Section E of the PCT. Spent a lot of time hiking through the wind farms. I'd heard about all of the birds being killed by the windmills, so was curious to check it out. I expected piles of carcasses around each mill, but found no evidence at all of bird deaths. Just anecdotal evidence, of course, but still.
And Kris is spot on. We need to top every roof in SoCal with solar panels. But that makes too much sense to have any chance of happening.
I agree that we can already start implementing solar PV systems on parking structures, schools, post offices, shopping malls, etc,etc,etc. This systems can all back feed local grids. But I also believe we must think long term and design for the future. What is so wrong with that. Sure there are technological hurdles. But we are capable of remarkable things when we choose to pursue them.
The whole plastic bag thing bugs me. Remember when we were almost forced to use them? Using paper bags was going to destroy all of the forests. There were talks of banning them.
We are living in a world where very powerful people behind the scenes hold license to decide who is to live and who is to die.
We’re poked and prodded, drugged into submission, shot full of poisons, and fed toxic waste. We are, each and every one of us, a statistic in a planned obsolescence program. And while we are breaking down from stress, toxins, chemicals, GMOs, vaccines, and medical quackery, to name a few, we are generating a whole lotta cash for a whole lotta people, as well as providing valuable data while we serve as guinea pigs for experimental research in genetic modification.
So here we have an awe-inspiring thread title with over 100 postings, and the only topic so far discussed is energy which is admittedly a very important consideration for our future. But there seems to be some incipient (or not) thread drift toward politicization of the thread, not surprising!
Permit me to add a new dimension to this thread: How will we live differently, interact with one another differently, get our information differently in the years to come?
Google is releasing its first versions of its Glass technology. It has the potential to completely leap-frog the entire mobile device technology suite and completely transform how we may live. Lest we think this is all good, cool and neat, there are civil liberties and privacy issues associated with how this (Brave) new world will evolve. Check this out:
If you’re not familiar with Glass, it’s a Google program that uses augmented reality technology to beam information directly into the field of view of a pair of glasses. So if you get an email or text message, or are in need of driving directions, Glass can feed you that information instantly -- all you have to do is look. In fact, one day, the glasses may be replaced by contact lenses!
Google Glass is important because it represents a leapfrog move in mobile technology.
Glass is fairly controversial, particularly to those concerned with privacy issues.
Here's an excerpt from an article published on CreativeGood.com that best sums up these fears:
Just think: If a million Google Glasses go out into the world and start storing audio and video of the world around them, the scope of Google search suddenly gets much, much bigger, and that search index will include you. Let me paint a picture. Ten years from now, someone, some company, or some organization, takes an interest in you, wants to know if you’ve ever said anything they consider offensive, or threatening, or just includes a mention of a certain word or phrase they find interesting. A single search query within Google’s cloud – whether initiated by a publicly available search, or a federal subpoena, or anything in between – will instantly bring up documentation of every word you’ve ever spoken within earshot of a Google Glass device.
This is the discussion we should have about Google Glass. The tech community, by all rights, should be leading this discussion. Yet most techies today are still chattering about whether they’ll look cool wearing the device.
This is a rather dystopian view of future society. But seriously, isn't it reasonable to be at least a little worried about being recorded at inopportune times? Yes, we live in a camera phone culture where virtually everything from street fights to wedding dances ends up on the Internet, but Glass has much more of an always-on component than smartphones that spend a lot of time in people's pockets.
Furthermore, shouldn't we be talking about information overload?
There's a wealth of data supporting the idea that we need less data, not more.
In January 2011, consulting firm McKinsey published an article on this topic, noting the negative impact of too much information on productivity, creativity, and happiness. And research from the University of California, Irvine, found that "higher levels of perceived cyber-based overload significantly predicted self-reports of greater stress, poorer health, and less time devoted to contemplative activities."
And from an anecdotal perspective, is it not weird to sit at a table in a restaurant and be surrounded by people who are choosing to play with their phones rather than interact?
But you know what? The fact that Google Glass is driving conversations about the role of technology in modern society is evidence of the device's relevance.
OK Tacoheads: Carry on with further discussions about the future.
Try not to display further foolishness nwo2. What you ceaselessly prattle on about has been known by me for more than three decades. Yammering on about it without advancing options or alternatives is like Rush Limbaugh, all complaint and no answer. The future is coming for our off spring. Fear it or help guide it.
Personally,, i think we should go backwards in a few areas.. Technology isnt always good. Re-inventing the wheel for instance. There will be no chips , no glasses, no robotic things once the power goes out.
And you philo, are ok with being implanted with RFIDs, GMO food, fluoride in our drinking water, aspartame in yogurt, an emerging police state with body scanners and check points, yadda, yadda, yadda....You're ok with all of this?
I "yammer on" about this because most of the sheeple are completely oblivious to all of it. They're all cell phone zombies.
I can hardly wait till the Google glasses come out. Pfffttt....
I ask you again philo, when the RFID implant comes available...will you take one?
And for all the new technology, comes new prices. Those like the new aged cars and other gadgets that are so expensive to purchase that the class seperation of the GOOFY rich and the totally poor shall only be enhanced. Minimum wage being stuck in the stone age, the swarming of the lower class workers from foreign countries and the soaring costs of "normal life" are all designs for disasters. 40 K for a new vehicle now is ludicrous. I can imagine the "solar road" car to run ya about 104K for the two seat models..
Ron when I was in high school the first hand held calculators were coming out. They costs hundreds. I still remember how to use a slide rule because of the initial costs. A year later they were less than half as much, A year after that and they were giving them away for opening bank accounts.
These days you can have more computing power on a smart phone than could have been dreamed about 30 years ago. Except by those of outrageous vision who knew it would some day be. Like the Wright Brothers. Products develop, become popular, come down in cost and all the while providing jobs.
No nwo2 you were not just asking you were absolutely inferring.
You know me not at all and yet make reckless assumptions about me.
That is a foolishness unbecoming of one who feels they know so much.
How about offering some of your thoughts on how to avoid what you fear.
Me, I fear we are going to make this planet virtually uninhabitable for humans if we dont start making some radical adjustments.
I am merely trying to offer some information on potential alternatives particularly in renewables and green energy production. Why are you bothered? Nobody is being lined up for implantation of rfid chips around me. LED lights sure but not rfids.
Nobody is being lined up for implantation of rfid chips around me
Not..... yet. But they will be, mark my words.
First the prisoners, then the Alzheimer's patients, then the children, then voluntarily, then eventually mandatory.
if we dont start making some radical adjustments.
To some folks, that would mean population control, and yes that includes offing of the undesirables.
Look to euthanasia clinics popping up as they are today in the Netherlands. Voluntary at first, of course. How wonderful.
Just finished up Section E of the PCT. Spent a lot of time hiking through the wind farms. I'd heard about all of the birds being killed by the windmills, so was curious to check it out. I expected piles of carcasses around each mill, but found no evidence at all of bird deaths. Just anecdotal evidence, of course, but still.
So Gary you walked through, one wind farm. Now that is SOLID evidence...
I'll get you a link, OK?
And in North Palm Springs, they had to go buy a snow plow, to move the sand off the roads.
by M E Skeel
Created on: January 23, 2010 Last Updated: December 05, 2012
Wind power is one of several alternative renewable energy sources that could provide clean, green power in the future. However many people are concerned about the effects of wind turbines on wildlife. In 1981, one of the world's first wind farms was built at Altamont in California. Unfortunately it was sited on a major avian migration route and in an area with high numbers of birds of prey. The blades were long, reached almost to the ground where many birds hunt and turned so quickly that birds did not see them. The unfortunate result was a lot of bird deaths and a lot of bad publicity for wind farms as bird-killing eyesores. On average, Altamont's 4700 turbines kill one bird a year each. This total of 4700 birds is far too many, but this information should be used to build better turbines and take more care in their placement in order to reduce the effect of wind turbines on bird life, rather than using it to stop developing this power source.
There are now plans to build 300 windmills off the coast of New Jersey and a preliminary study by the state Department of Environmental Protection says that previous studies show an offshore wind turbine averages only one or two bird strikes a year. This could mean that these 300 new windmills might cause up to six hundred deaths per year, which is not insignificant. However one needs to put these numbers in perspective. Each year in America, 50 to 100 million birds are killed on the roads. Domestic and feral cats kill 4-5 million birds per year, while collisions with skyscrapers kill another 100 million! In comparison,the impact of wind turbines is quite small. Obviously we have to be very careful when constructing new wind farms to reduce the impact on wildlife, The fact that environmental impact studies are now required prior to building the structures is a hopeful sign. If such studies had been carried out before Altamont was constructed, they would have found that the turbines were being built on major avian migration routes and that might have altered how they were built. Certainly the impacts on wildlife must be considered when planning locations and designs for wind farms.
This can significantly reduce the number of birds that are killed, because the birds can see the blades turning. There are also smaller wind turbines in production for home use. We bought and installed one last year. It looks like an airplane on a stick and functions much like a wind sock with propellors. The blades are small and spin at a speed that leaves them quite visible. When wind gusts are so strong that the blades would be spinning so fast as to be invisible, the tail turns sideways and shuts the turbine down for its own protection. The result is that we have not seen even one bird strike in the year that this turbine has been active and have generated a significant amount of power for our domestic use. Our little wind turbine is also quite aesthetically pleasing to look at and is not an eyesore.
There is evidence that bats can also be killed by wind turbines but this can be ameliorated by not activating the turbines at dusk and dawn when the bats are active. This is another area where pre-construction environmental impact studies can point to potential risks to wildlife and find solutions to reduce the impact of the wind farms.
To keep all this in perspective one also needs to look at the impact of using fossil fuels on wildlife. Coal is now mined in the Appalachians by mountain top removal. How many millions of birds, mammals and reptiles are killed by this process? Burning fossil fuels also exacerbates global warming and climate change which could cause widespread species losses, not only of birds and bats but many other species. What is the cost to wildlife if we don't build wind farms and develop solar power and other renewable energy sources? It could be much, much higher.
Altamont was an exercise in poor planning and no proper EIS. Now it is the bird killing poster child of the Oil & Coal lobby's efforts to discredit renewable sources of energy. We learn, we grow, we improve. Or we go all Deep Horizon and Three Mile Island.
In the 70s there were extensive studies and modifications made to high tension power transmission lines because of bird of prey electrocutions. Not so much of a problem anymore.
These issues are addressable once heads are taken out of the sand.
The future can and will be awesome despite bull from both corners of the same political loving members of society.
Hey did anyone catch a recent study published in the journal of industrial ecology? Seems that off the showroom internal combustion engines have a much smaller carbon footprint when compared to the electric cars like the Nissan leaf. And then where is that electricity coming from?
Depending on many factors of course, the point they even up on carbon footprint is between 60,000 to 100,000 miles. I'm not a scientist but did print and read the article, they give evidence at 100k and 200k.
Curious about battery cycle life, that's a lot of cycles to get to 100k and the greenies at that point STILL have a LARGER carbon footprint.
So yea, the future is going to be great, lets just not believe everything from either side.
Aloha,
Will
Title "comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles"
Nohea, automobiles used to take a great deal more resources to build, weigh a ton more and get ridiculously poor gas milage. I think they can now build something like five cars for the same amount of raw materials as it took to build one in the 40s. You are now looking at 100 years of automobile evolution. I see this as a good and encouraging thing. Don't you suppose that Electric and Green vehicles will experience a similar on going technological improvement? Don't you suppose that Solar generation of electricity will likewise continue to improve? I think the Tesla S is at about the equivalent stage in the developement of electric vehicles as the 57 Chevy was to internal combustion cars. Internal combustion engines are still pathetically inefficient (something like 13%) at converting the potential energy of gasoline to useful locomotion.
I agree with the great advances in tech with autos and believe it will be the same with solar, wind and EV's. Just curious and I don't know the answer, wasn't it a free market that drove the tech revolution? Sure the state said you must put seat-belts in so we got them and not airbags till much later, but the market demanded advances and we got them.
The green revolution is getting a fair amount of tax dollars and incentives to buyers and yet so few are being bought.
And all these proud leaf owners(both of them) should know the truth.
Doing this off my ipad with a glass of wine in the other hand, so I'm out but it's an interesting topic and I am hard wired to be optimistic.
I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned the HUGE numbers of animals and birds killed by automobiles, and the very large problems roads cause for migration.
This is a pic of the Fall 1977 issue of the CoEvolution Quartely published by the Whole Earth Catalog. It shows Los Angeles in 1900. The very bottom caption says Note clear skies.There are several buildings with then commercially available thermosiphon solar water heaters. They were quite effective for the times and were gaining wider popularity and acceptance. Until the vested interests of big biz using their bought and paid for politicians, forced cconsumers to remove them before they would be wired to the new power grid. This happened in several American sun belt cities across the US. The same tactic was used effectively on midwest farmers and their once ubiquitous wind mills. So the notion of "Free" Market forces fails muster in light of the tens of billions of tax dollars we still shell out like undeserved corporate welfare to Big Oil.
Credit: philo
This is the pic on the back cover of the same journal. It depicts the Signal Hill oil field in the Los Angeles basin around 1920.
It is amazing what can be accomplished by "free" market forces in just 20 years isn't it?
Incentive is a tool that Govt can use for good or ill. IMO it is good for State and Federal Governments to incentive-ise sustainability.
Where the market forces play out is in manufacturing improvements and technical advances that make a company's product better and more successfully accepted than their competitors. Like cel phones and iPads etal. And Electric cars.
Europeans invented the horseless carriages, but Americans embraced it. As early as 1896, J. Frank and Charles Duryea established the Duryea Motor Company in Peoria, Illinois, and sold the first dozen American-made cars. By 1900 American carmakers had sold about 8,000 vehicles, and by 1910, registrations had soared nearly to half million and were rising rapidly. Leading the adoption of automobiles were doctors and other professionals, but others quickly followed, putting cars into service for the purpose of business, politics, commuting, and recreation. By 1910 automobiles were already becoming necessities.
Not everyone embraced the new machines, however, and enthusiasts had to argue the automobile's superiority over the old "haymotors." Advocates claimed the cars were faster than horses, didn't tire, consumed less fuel, never ran away and were also cleaner. Some even reasoned that cars would eliminate traffic congestion, because an automobile only took up half the space of a horse and buggy!
This exhibition presents lovingly preserved vehicles from the 1900-1910 period, along with related material that illuminates how people experienced that complex, finicky, but most versatile machine, the horseless carriage. The cars themselves displayed great variety in cost, technical innovation, and performance capability. They ranged from a motorized buggy like the Columbus to the powerful, heavy (and costly) Packard.
Reading Automobiles
No consumer product compared with the horseless carriage in complexity. There were hundreds of different brand names and types of cars, and even the simplest of vehicles could have thousands of parts. Figuring out what car to buy and how to operate and maintain it required a great deal of information. Learning how to fix it demanded, as one writer put it, "a liberal education in itself."
The motorists' ally in dealing with automotive complexity was the popular press. Specialized publications such as Horseless Age helped car buyers, sellers, owners, operators, repairers, parts suppliers, and even those who just wanted to follow the horseless carriage revolution. More than any invention before or since (except perhaps the computer), the automobile triggered and became part of an "information revolution."
Equipping The Car
Much debate swirled around what it meant to say a car was "fully equipped". Should it come with tires, a windshield or top to keep out the rain? And what about headlights for night operation? Buyers could not take any of these accessories for granted in horseless carriage days, for the definition of just what standard equipment was remained in flux. And there was little agreement among federal, state and local laws as to the equipment required, if, indeed, such laws even existed.
Once owners equipped their machines with the basics, there were always enticing extras to purchase. From the dawn of the industry, "after market" accessories allowed people to individualize their machines. Many added clocks, speedometers, horns, steering wheels, or "Motor-meters," a popular device that monitored engine water temperature and warned of impending engine overheating.
Touring
The mobility the automobile introduced accounted for much of its initial popularity. Traveling ever-greater distance within a shorter period of time was hailed as "a revolution in daily life." Touring emerged as a popular new activity. The drive was an end unto itself as the roads of America beckoned.
Auotmobile societies and clubs were formed, long distance events such as the Glidden Tours were held, and Transcontinental crossings become major news events. This trend prompted a new craze in travel. In 1904 alone it was estimated that several thousand Americans took cross-country automobile vacations. The lure of the open road was too much to resist and Americans risked much for the adventure of touring.
The automobile made it possible to view some of the nation's great natural attractions.
Short distance touring was an added feature of the new trend in touring. The traditional Sunday outing could now encompass even greater distance. Many argued that a leisurely drive in the county offered modern urban Americans a superior form of relaxation, entertainment and family unity.
Group motor tours combined socializing and sightseeing. Formerly remote places of historical interest were now accessible. Here a group of enthusiasts visit the rural San Xavier Mission in Arizona.
Between 1905 and 1913 the Glidden reliability tours were run. Sponsored by Charles J. Glidden, a millionaire automobile enthusiast, the tours were intended to demonstrate the reliability of the various motorcars on the market. The first Glidden tour in July 1905 took eleven days and covered an 870 mile route through New York City and New England. As one participant noted: "The tour has proved that the automobile is now almost foolproof. It has proved that American cars are durable and efficient. It has shown the few who took part how delightful their short vacation may be, and it has strengthened our belief in the permanence of the motorcar. By 1907 popular interest in reliability runs was giving way to interest in gasoline economy runs.
Racing was also a way to generate interest in cars and demonstrate their reliability. In 1908 a group of intrepid racers competed in an around the world event - New York to Paris via Russia and Western Europe - that caught the public's fancy. Auto racing today continues to be used as a competetive weapon in the auto industry.
The first woman to drive across the United States was Alice Huyler Ramsey. At twenty-one this Vassar graduate from New Jersey and her crew took 41 days to travel from New York to San Francisco in June of 1909. She later stated that she "was born mechanical, and inheritance from my father. My husband wasn't mechanical at all. Even though he supported her cross-county trip and other undertakings, her husband never learned to drive himself. In 1960 the AAA commended her as "Woman motorist of the Century'.
Selling Automobiles
The bicycle boom of the 1890's had acquainted thousands of Americans with the joys of the open road, and many bicycle owners became early buyers of the cars. The country's size, great distances between destinations, and relative wealth also favored car buying.
From the manufacturer's perspective, in the 1900's it was harder to make a good car than to sell one. Many carmakers counted on selling their wares at big-city shows, a custom that also started with the bicycle, because they lacked developed dealer networks. New York City held the first auto show in the autumn of 1900, and other cities quickly imitated the practice. Carmakers also advertised heavily, soon becoming the largest consumer of the services of the newly professionalized advertising business.
Purchasers faced daunting prospects. Not only were the advertisements misleading, but each year brought new manufacturers into the market, offering a bewildering variety of vehicles. There were cars powered by electricity and fuel-based engines; lightweight buggies with small engines competed with heavy touring machines with powerful power plants. And buyers got no help from published road tests, owner surveys, or consumer organizations, for such things hadn't yet been invented. It was truly the era of caveat emptor, or buyer beware!
Maintaining and Repairing Automobiles
The popular song, "You'll Have to Get Out and Get Under," aptly described one unpleasant aspect of owning a horseless carriage. Before 1910 mechanical breakdowns were an expected part of motoring. As evidence of this, manufacturers boasted about the ease with which the crankcases of their cars could be dropped, cylinders removed, or engines opened up to remove carbon buildup.
Early cars demanded constant attention. "To keep a machine in a state of perfection, "observed one owner in 1908, "one should devote every morning from ten to forty-five minutes to carefully oiling and looking over different parts." Even with vigilance, however, problems occurred. Spark plugs shorted out when the porcelain separated from the metal; springs were prone to break on encountering bad bumps; and rubber tires were destroyed by gasoline, sunlight, and sharp stones, which rendered them truly the Achilles heel of early vehicles.
Dressing the Part
Early automobile dress was merely an adaptation of contemporary leisure clothing. After the turn of century, fashion caught up with the motoring phenomenon and new styles appeared.
Long, loosely fitted coats were worn by both sexes. Designed to allow for maximum mobility and protection these coats were available in numerous and often ingenious variations. Leather was the most desired fabric for cool weather while the lighter weight "duster" in linen or cotton was favored for summer driving.
Automobile accessories were critical features for motoring dress. From gloves to goggles; caps to hoods; protection and fashion were both critical elements of open air driving. Automobile and fashion periodicals lavishly illustrated the very latest in accessories which flooded the American and European markets, ensuring that the auto enthusiast kept apace with the latest developments in fashion as well as in technology.
Resisting the Automobile
Much of the rural opposition to automobiles was waged chiefly at touring motorists. Farmers claimed tourists posed a danger to stock, horsedrawn traffic and even crops. Opposition to automobiles ranged from plowing up roads, barbed wiring roads making them impassable to boycotting car-driving businessmen who attempted to conduct business with farmers and even refusing to support politicians who owned automobiles.
While most horsebreeders were put out of business by the horseless carriage, blacksmiths, carriage makers, and livery stable operators might adapt their operations to accommodate the new machines. This blacksmith converted his shop to an early service station of horseless carriages. Reconciliation began when the unparalleled service the automobile provided during the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 served to entrench its usefulness and relative reliability in the mind of American society. 200 privately owned motorcars, a caravan of motortrucks led by Walter C. White, and 15,000 gallons of gasoline donated by Standard Oil were all part of the relief effort in post-quake San Francisco.
Physicans were one of the first professions to widely adopt the automobile. The more reliable and faster auto ensured that housecalls, particularly to rural patients could be easily undertaken. For example, Dr. Thomas Williams (shown at right), who was the first pysician in Palo Alto to own an automobile, drove a 1906 Autocar.
Ford's Model T introduced the automobile to a wider American buying public. With the introduction of this hugely successful car, opposition to the automobile, already in decline, virtually vanished .
The Electric Car
As we face a myriad of environmental problems caused by driving gasoline-fueled cars for nearly a century, an innovative and viable solution for the problem may be the electric car. A battery operated electric car, noiseless, odorless, pollution-free, could be the answers to worries about toxic fumes and depletion about natural resources. Intriguing, though, is that thousands of electric cars were in operation for twenty to thirty years around the turn of twentieth century and that women drove most of them. In fact, the cars were marketed heavily to women, as shown by the ad illustrated here, once sales analysis indicated women were the primary market for the electric car.
Clean, comfortable, and easy to operate, electric cars didn't need cranked or motor driven starters and many were designed as enclosed vehicles. Electric cars had limited range (improving from 20 to 50-100 miles per charge by 1910) and were less powerful than gasoline powered cars, making them best suited for running errands about town. Manufacturers predicted in 1899 that "...the whole of the United States will be...sprinkled with electric charging stations."
Perhaps the most popular electric car sold in the United States was the Detroit Electric, which began production in 1907. Originally produced by the Anderson Carriage Company, the company changed its name to Detroit Electric Car Co. in 1918 and continued to build electric vehicles until ceasing operations in 1939. The best production year was 1916, with about 3,000 units sold.
Ultimately, the limitations of electric cars outweighed their good points. Although Thomas Edison optimistically announced a long-distance electric storage battery in 1901, he was unable to effectively manufacture it until 1908. The 1908 battery provided a range of up to 200 miles, but was expensive (over $600) and inefficient when charging (over 30% of the charging energy was wasted). After World War I started, manufacturing capacity was diverted to batteries for submarines until 1920.
As a result, as long distance touring and high speed driving became popular in America, neither could be done in an electric car. The gasoline-powered engine won out, but good ideas are persistant: as we begin the twenty first century, we are thinking again about the advantages of the electric car.
I still say there is no free lunch, by that I mean all of man's activities have an impact on the earth.
It's best to weigh out the pro's and con's before declaring a fix or solution to ones problems.
And to Philo Ill say this... you can post all sorts of uguly oil field photos, but if you go to Signal Hill, Long Beach, Ventura, Santa Barbara, Beverly Hills and many more places in Southern California that produced oil, you don't see evidence of that sort of distruction and enviro damage. People have a way of moving on and the past is just history... and no one cares about history. -right?
Visualizing the future is difficult to do. Recall 2001 Space Odyssey? The mem chips that controled HAL 9000 were the size of VHS tapes....I think most views of what our future looks like come from our view of the world today. I mean who could have imagined Alex H. free soloing HD, back in 1977?????
This is what makes it so exciting... to me at least. I want to see what tomorrow really looks like, so I'll stick around as long as I can.
So Gary you walked through, one wind farm. Now that is SOLID evidence...
I'll get you a link, OK?
Guyman, I walked through two wind farms. One north of Hwy 138, and the other outside Mojave. I make no claims as to it being solid evidence, just anecdotal evidence. If you got a link, send it along, please.
Of course their is no "free lunch". Every human endeavor on this fragile orb has a cost and a down side. Even painting the Mona Lisa required the destruction of pristine minerals and the production of deadly noxious pollution. My point is we have learned to do things better over the millennia. Getting more from less was a concept that visionary Buckminster Fuller espoused. I agree with him and see it as a potential all the time. I never said Signal Hill looked like that today. My reference was to indicate that we have already gone through and recovered from major impacts due to the development of new technologies that become overwhelmingly popular. We have so much more information and awareness available today that it seems probable that developers of new sustainable green energy systems will incorporate most legitimate concerns into their planning. Thus you see Wind Turbine producers working with wildlife experts and land managers to place the farms in better locations and avoid unnecessary bird strikes. I think they are likely engaging in far greater planning than the wing nuts that built that Nuclear reactor on a Californian fault line.
We have a great deal more to gain through developing cleaner more sustainable energy systems than we do by fracking the whole planet. The "Green" economy is an economic juggernaught waiting to create millions of new jobs.
When faster locomotives became available and the first subways were built a segment of society tried to get them shut down. They were convinced that any human traveling faster than 30 mph would simply suffocate. Woooooo scary.
Anyone that thinks energy companies compete in a free market needs to get their head checked.
FWIW, we would all be speaking German or Japanese if the government hadn't subsidized Grand Coulee Dam. And we will all be speaking Canadian if we don't start subsidizing alternative energy.
Free Market, invented all the stuff we have today....except for the atom bomb.
We had a war to win.
Government just gets in the way, it lacks the brains and the creative vision to come up with ideas that will make money. If it dosen't make money
it's not a viable enterprise.
The US gov didn't invent the train, but once it was viable they offered land in exchange for track built.
The first paved roads were built by bicycle clubs....
The TVA was founded long after the first power compaines.
Look- the government has a place in our life, lots of rules and regulations are sometimes nessary for our saftey... Zoning laws are good - one can't just go build a dynamite processing plant at 5th and Main.
But if you think that the over blown government we have today, one that can't balance it's books, is going to come up with the next great "THING" and transform our lives, well that makes me laugh.
Free Market, invented all the stuff we have today....except for the atom bomb.
Complete bullsh#t.
The first paved roads were built by bicycle clubs....
But the majority of roads in use today, including interstates, were designed, funded, and built by the government.
The TVA was founded long after the first power compaines.
Because the power companies were unable/unwilling to meet the growing energy needs of the citizens.
But if you think that the over blown government we have today, one that can't balance it's books, is going to come up with the next great "THING" and transform our lives, well that makes me laugh.
It is pretty laughable to think anyone actually thinks the government is involved in innovation. Where did THAT idea come from?
Government determines policy and the distribution of public funds based on the will of the people. It is high time (we)they decided to stop "distributing" our money on the energy resources of last century and reevaluate (our)their energy policy from a stand point of efficiency, sustainability, and diversity. To accomplish that we need people who clearly didn't understand the role of government to stop getting in the way.
Government determines policy and the distribution of public funds based on the will of the people.
You mean based on keeping happy the most effective special interest group for maintaining their power.
You just want to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic and promote a different group of plunderers.
But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.
The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.
Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.
Philo's on it. Never has been, never will be... Not as long as the bankers are in charge.
Iceland has the plan
The 2009–2011 Icelandic financial crisis protests, also referred to as the Kitchenware Revolution[1] or Icelandic Revolution (Icelandic: Íslenska Byltingin) occurred in the wake of the Icelandic financial crisis. There had been sporadic protests since October 2008 against the Icelandic government's handling of the financial crisis. The protests intensified on 20 January 2009 with thousands of people showing up to protest at the parliament (Althing) in Reykjavík.[2][3][4]
Protesters were calling for the resignation of government officials, and for new elections to be held.[5] The protests stopped for the most part with the resignation of the old right-wing government.[6] A new left-wing government was formed after elections in late April 2009. It was supportive of the protestors, and initiated a reform process that included the judicial prosecution before the Landsdómur of the former Prime Minister Geir Haarde.
And these are the people who will try and make it happen in the states;
American Tent Cities
Camp Quixote, Olympia, Washington State[2]
Camp Take Notice, Ann Arbor, Michigan[3]
Dignity Village, Portland, Oregon
New Jack City and Little Tijuana, Fresno, California[2]
Nickelsville, located in Seattle[2][4]
River Haven,[5]Ventura County, California[6][7]
Safe Ground, Sacramento, California[2]
Temporary Homeless Service Area (THSA), Ontario, California[2]
Tent City, Lakewood, New Jersey[8][9]
Tent City, Avenue A and 13th Street, Lubbock, Texas[10]
Tent City, New Jersey forest[11]
Tent City, banks of the American River, Sacramento, California[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]
Tent City 3, Seattle
Tent City 4, eastern King County outside of Seattle
The Point, where the Gunnison River and Colorado River meet[21]
The Village of Hope and Community of Hope, Fresno, California[2]
Transition Park, Camden, New Jersey
Tent City, Fayette County, Tennessee, [1]
Camp Unity , Kirkland, WA [2]
You just want to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic and promote a different group of plunderers.
Guarantee those who did something, anything, were better off and better appreciated than those who sat on their asses cheering for the worst possible outcome.
Government just gets in the way, it lacks the brains and the creative vision to come up with ideas that will make money. If it dosen't make money
it's not a viable enterprise.
Guyman, is that your bottom line? Money? Is that what's important?
Market forces at work? Here's market forces at work:
In the '70s a company in West Virginia unleashed a load of carbon tetrachloride into the Ohio River threatening the water supply of millions, not to mention the ecosystem.
It wasn't an accident. They did the numbers. It was cheaper to dump it and pay the fine than to dispose of it properly.
The miracle of the "free market" is largely a myth. In the world of unfettered unregulated free market you end up with very profitable businesses doing a cut and run and leaving delightful legacys like Love Canal for our children to play in. Businesses just want to make money. They would hunt the last whale or buffalo for a buck if allowed. Show them how they can profit while developing sustainability or rue the consequences.
"The only way to really break this cycle of spiking gas prices, the only way to break that cycle for good, is to shift our cars entirely, our cars and trucks, off oil." President Barack Obama
Today Obama announced a proposal for a $2 billion alternative fuel research fund. http://tinyurl.com/bh37ts8
Credit: philo
Defying conventional wisdom about the limits of wind power, in 2012 both Iowa and South Dakota generated close to 1/4 of their electricity from wind farms. The US now has 60,000 MW of wind online, enough to power more than 14 million homes. http://tinyurl.com/a9dkvum
Credit: philo
If Texas were a country, it would be sixth in the world for wind power. The Lone Star state is seeing the benefits of wind development, which is creating local and regional jobs, boosting the economy, and keeping energy rates low and steady. http://tinyurl.com/cphy3sh
The government cant direct our technoligy... they are to dumb.
Yes, but they do incorporate anything they can into the defense and intelligence agencies.
I fear for the young who will be born into some version of 1984. No kidding. Everything you do and say is now recorded and will be kept. So don't go posting too many party pics on FB.
EARTH-The Operators' Manual
Like This Page · 3 hours ago
Deutsche Bank has released a report concluding that the global solar market will be able to compete without subsidies by the end of 2014, and in countries like India and Italy, that's already the case. http://ow.ly/j2XjF — with Tom Bell Waynes Solar.
Guyman, it's the 21st century why are you addicted to the status quo of last century?
Credit: philo
Credit: philo
????????????????????
Credit: philo
Credit: philo
2012 saw more than 16 million solar panels installed in the US, making it the fastest growing domestic energy source. In total, solar reached a 76% growth with 3.3 GW installed. http://tinyurl.com/d4xcoku
Yes Captain it wouldn't be in the way, but anything in the path of it's power transmission back to Earth would be. At least it would be a cooperative expansion off Earth to solve our problems. We have to expand outwards as a species or suffer ever escalating, irrational and ultimately self destructive argument much like here on Supertopo.Humans need frontiers or we turn inwards seeking the lowest common denominator as the spirit shrivels.
So what do you guys have against cars????? How you going to get to the crags, over 300 miles away, on your schedule?
Well this question seems to indicate that you think that there is only one way to do things.
What would be wrong with electric vehicles charged on solar energy?
Do we have to be enslaved to the internal combustion engine simply because it is the technology we have now?
The United Arab Emirates, an oil-rich nation, has just completed Shams 1, a 100 MW parabolic trough solar project, currently the largest of its kind in the world. The “world’s largest” title won’t hold for long though - the Ivanpah project in California’s Mojave Desert will come in at 370 MW, and is expected to begin operations this summer. http://ow.ly/j9CST
by M E Skeel
Created on: January 23, 2010 Last Updated: December 05, 2012
Wind power is one of several alternative renewable energy sources that could provide clean, green power in the future. However many people are concerned about the effects of wind turbines on wildlife. In 1981, one of the world's first wind farms was built at Altamont in California. Unfortunately it was sited on a major avian migration route and in an area with high numbers of birds of prey. The blades were long, reached almost to the ground where many birds hunt and turned so quickly that birds did not see them. The unfortunate result was a lot of bird deaths and a lot of bad publicity for wind farms as bird-killing eyesores. On average, Altamont's 4700 turbines kill one bird a year each. This total of 4700 birds is far too many, but this information should be used to build better turbines and take more care in their placement in order to reduce the effect of wind turbines on bird life, rather than using it to stop developing this power source.
There are now plans to build 300 windmills off the coast of New Jersey and a preliminary study by the state Department of Environmental Protection says that previous studies show an offshore wind turbine averages only one or two bird strikes a year. This could mean that these 300 new windmills might cause up to six hundred deaths per year, which is not insignificant. However one needs to put these numbers in perspective. Each year in America, 50 to 100 million birds are killed on the roads. Domestic and feral cats kill 4-5 million birds per year, while collisions with skyscrapers kill another 100 million! In comparison,the impact of wind turbines is quite small. Obviously we have to be very careful when constructing new wind farms to reduce the impact on wildlife, The fact that environmental impact studies are now required prior to building the structures is a hopeful sign. If such studies had been carried out before Altamont was constructed, they would have found that the turbines were being built on major avian migration routes and that might have altered how they were built. Certainly the impacts on wildlife must be considered when planning locations and designs for wind farms.
This can significantly reduce the number of birds that are killed, because the birds can see the blades turning. There are also smaller wind turbines in production for home use. We bought and installed one last year. It looks like an airplane on a stick and functions much like a wind sock with propellors. The blades are small and spin at a speed that leaves them quite visible. When wind gusts are so strong that the blades would be spinning so fast as to be invisible, the tail turns sideways and shuts the turbine down for its own protection. The result is that we have not seen even one bird strike in the year that this turbine has been active and have generated a significant amount of power for our domestic use. Our little wind turbine is also quite aesthetically pleasing to look at and is not an eyesore.
There is evidence that bats can also be killed by wind turbines but this can be ameliorated by not activating the turbines at dusk and dawn when the bats are active. This is another area where pre-construction environmental impact studies can point to potential risks to wildlife and find solutions to reduce the impact of the wind farms.
To keep all this in perspective one also needs to look at the impact of using fossil fuels on wildlife. Coal is now mined in the Appalachians by mountain top removal. How many millions of birds, mammals and reptiles are killed by this process? Burning fossil fuels also exacerbates global warming and climate change which could cause widespread species losses, not only of birds and bats but many other species. What is the cost to wildlife if we don't build wind farms and develop solar power and other renewable energy sources? It could be much, much higher.
Altamont was an exercise in poor planning and no proper EIS. Now it is the bird killing poster child of the Oil & Coal lobby's efforts to discredit renewable sources of energy. We learn, we grow, we improve. Or we go all Deep Horizon and Three Mile Island.
In the 70s there were extensive studies and modifications made to high tension power transmission lines because of bird of prey electrocutions. Not so much of a problem anymore.
These issues are addressable once heads are taken out of the sand.
True- some of that Philo,, but as far as electrocutions, they still happen on a daily basis across the country. And the wind mills still chop up birds of prey today - here in Kneevader.
I'm not saying because something's dangerous that it's automatically disqualified.
What's being pointed out here is green energy harms the environment and kills people too, just like most other energy sources.
Green energy is no better than anything else, but it is different. Which fits well with the thinking of people who believe everything that's been proven to work needs to be scrapped, and be replaced with something that sounds good.
Green energy is no better than anything else, but it is different. Which fits well with the thinking of people who believe everything that's been proven to work needs to be scrapped, and be replaced with something that sounds good.
Philo, hate to break it to you but the Tesla is a lemon. They claim over
300 miles per charge but no independent has gotten more than about 160. A
friend is about to get one but she is like a lot of all-electric car buyers -
she can afford to be a poseur.
And how many millions has Tesla gotten from the guvmint? Wasn't it $465 MILLION
to build a really expensive car that only the Hollywood poseurs can afford?
The Tesla is hardly a lemon. The Chevy Volt probably is but the Tesla, not so much. Since the average commuter drives less that 50 miles a day 160 mile range seems not to bad.
The technology is being improved constantly. Or should we just let the Corporate Oil-garchy keep suppressing technological innovation in favor of the unsustainable status quo?
Wind energy is good for the environment, which means it's good for the wildlife that rely on the environment for survival. Air pollution and habitat destruction from the production, transportation, and combustion of fossil fuels in conventional power plants kills many more birds than wind turbines ever will. According to the National Audubon Society, climate change and habitat destruction are two of the biggest threats to bird populations, and so the Audubon Society supports responsibly-sited windparks.
Responsibly-sited wind turbines do not kill large numbers of birds, either in absolute or relative terms. Nationwide, collisions with wind turbines kill about 1/100th of 1% (0.0001%) of all birds killed annually due to human activity, compared with collisions with buildings and windows, which are responsible for about 55% of annual bird deaths. Even housecats represent a far greater threat to birds than windparks. About 10% of bird deaths are due to housecats — in the U.S. alone, some estimates put the number birds killed by housecats at ONE BILLION per year! Wind energy is pollution free and preserves open spaces, and presents much less of a threat to wildlife than other sources of energy —
Philo, get a paper bag, and don't dance around the issues. If you're a man
of the people how do you justify the guvmint subsidizing a rich man's car
that doesn't do what it is supposed to do? They will never produce more
than a few thousand of them for the Hollywood poseurs, if they stay out of
bankruptcy. That is not a wise use of our money.
Tesla keeps proving the skeptics wrong. For years we've heard all kinds of arguments explaining why they couldn't possibly succeed, and why they wouldn't deliver what they promised, how the auto industry was too hard to break into, etc. From the first promo pics of the Tesla Roadster in July 2006 to now, every time Tesla hits a new milestone, the naysayers go something like: "Well, they did this thing, but they won't get to this next thing." So I'll be curious to see what they'll come up with now that its been revealed that Tesla's factory has now reached its goal of producing Model S electric sedans at a rate of 20,000 a year, or 400 a week.
This is a big deal because economies of scale; that is, the more you make of something, the less it costs you per unit because you can amortize your fixed costs over more products and you have more bargaining power with your suppliers. This is a big part of Tesla's strategy. It'll also help clear their backlog of orders, which have piled up to around 13,000-15,000, and promise faster deliveries to new customers (some people might be deciding against the Model S because of the long waiting lists).
Another change is that so far, Tesla has only been making the more expensive top-of-the-line 85kWh model. It will now have the production capacity to start making 60kWh models too, filling some of those orders.
The company is also working hard on the Model X release, which should happen in mid to late 2014. Automotive News reports:
The Model X development is undergoing the transformation from the functional initial prototype that was unveiled last year to a production-ready prototype. The company will be making final decisions on the interior and exterior dimensions of the car in the first quarter of 2013, Musk said in an interview.
A key part of the Model X will be its dual-motor all-wheel drive system, which Musk predicted would give the crossover "the best road handling of any car in the world." (source)
And after that the next step will be a new model based on a third platform, closer in size to a BMW 3 and with a price around 30,000-35,000. This should be released in 3-4 years, and could be a major breakthrough for electric cars in my opinion, especially if the Supercharger network of fast-charging stations that provide free power grows all around the country and the world.
Phil, I got to get up close and personal with one of those new Teslas here in Silicon Beach, sure charged my battery. Got to say, if I win the Mega Millions, I'm getting one.
Now, I wonder how much my payments would be if I trade in my 2000 Isuzu Rodeo........(which I hardly ever drive since I mostly walk, take the bus, or cruise in my wife's Hyundai).
Philo, you quote treehugger.com, I get my info from LA Times and The Economist.
You might find it hard to believe but we're actually on the same side here.
I just think it stinks to subsidize a rich man's car. And, like I said, the
car mags and LA Times, rather notoriously lefty most would agree, have not
reviewed the car's range in a good light.
And they are in serious financial straits although I'm sure Elon will pull
a rabbit, or at least some cash, out of his hat.
The Tesla will not be a "rich mans" car. If it were how do you explain the sales and back orders?
Virtually all the so called "talking points" used by the nay-sayers of "Green" renewable energies are corporate propaganda created, promoted and paid for by the Koch Brothers. No vested interest there eh?
"In an New York Times article titled “Stalled out on Tesla’s Electric Highway,” reporter John Broder detailed a recent trip from suburban Washington to Connecticut in a Model S. The goal was to test the feasibility of a road trip by using Tesla’s new Supercharging stations in Delaware and Connecticut.
Yet Broder ran into difficulties with the car’s range, which were exacerbated by cold weather. After he left the car overnight without plugging it in, the Model S ended the trip on the back of a flatbed truck."
"The trouble is that repeated demonstrations of the car's prodigious power utterly destroy its range. Tesla says this model will go 300 miles on a single charge. The EPA puts that number at 265 miles. Over four days of testing the car, we managed only about 160 miles in heavy-footed driving.
All Model S's will charge through a 120V or 240V outlet. Tesla says the former needs roughly 46 hours to recharge fully, while the latter needs eight to 10 hours. Buyers can reduce these times by adding a second on-board charger for $1,500 and buying a high-power wall connector for $1,200."
Yes the original Tesla Poadster had a $90,000.00 sticker price.
The S and X models will be comparatively more affordable.
Much like the original HP hand held calculators cost many hundreds of dollars.
Once HP recovered their research and development costs the price point plummeted.
Same will occur with the Tesla.
In the future you won't have "charging stations. You will pull into the station and in the time it takes to fill a gas tank they will drop and replace the battery pack.
As much as I love two seater sports cars I am very excited about the upcoming Tesla X.
Well this question seems to indicate that you think that there is only one way to do things.
Not at all, infact it seams by your arguments: you think things should only be set up one way
What would be wrong with electric vehicles charged on solar energy? [\quote]
Nothing wrong with that, unless we must pay more.
Do we have to be enslaved to the internal combustion engine simply because it is the technology we have now? [\quote]
Not at all, but show me something better... by that I mean something that works better and thats cheaper.
As to your other question, grow up!
It's unfair to ask questions that one can't answer....
Dude- the bottom line for me is this: In a free market what works best will take over. Our government deciding winners/loosers will most likley give us a looser.
Philo, I don't harbor any animosity against Tesla and Elon is certainly one
smart cookie. I am just butt-hurt the guvmint didn't give me a loan for my
company. Hey, it was green, too. Well, some of the wood we got was pretty
green sometimes. But you catch my drift. Cheers and I'll keep y'all up on
my friend's Tesla, when she gets it. She's getting pretty antsy after
forking over a pile of cash lo these many months ago.
Unchecked Global climate change will kill more birds than wind mills will. And the cost of dealing with rising sea waters will dwarf the cost of infrastructure re-investment.
Unchecked Global climate change will kill more birds than wind mills will. And the cost of dealing with rising sea waters will dwarf the cost of infrastructure re-investment
Dude-The bottom line for ME in this:In a free market what works best will take over.Our government deciding winners and losers will most likely give us a loser.
I suspect your right,446 billion to fossil fuel corporations has insured some losers.
Sounds like all the folks on horses balking at a heavily subsidized Henry Ford.
Get to the birds later. How about this for a start.
Credit: philo
Climate change is bad news for fly fishermen and western aquatic ecosystems. A report finds that trout habitat is expected to decline by 58% by 2080 due to warming rivers and reduced streamflow caused by climate change. http://tinyurl.com/cfsc2fj
Showing results for bird deaths from global climate change
About 5,720,000 results
Death from above: Chicago's bird casualties offer clues on climate ...
grist.org/.../death-from-above-chicagos-bird-casualties-offer-clues-on-climate -change/ - Cached
Jan 22, 2013 ... Death from above: Chicago's bird casualties offer clues on climate change ... or skeletons will, over time, give us cues about environmental change. ... Earlier in- migrations and later departures may be an indication of global ...
Climate Change Causing Bizarre Arctic Bird Deaths : TreeHugger http://www.treehugger.com/.../climate-change-causing-bizarre-arctic-bird-deaths. html - Cached
Apr 7, 2010 ... A segment of bird deaths in the Arctic, he explained, are strange and, in a way, even comical. ... Climate Change Creating New Challenges ...
Myths & Facts About Wind Power - Media Matters for America
mediamatters.org/research/2012/05/25/myths-amp.../183968 - Cached
May 25, 2012 ... Clearly, bird deaths caused by wind turbines are a minute fraction of the ... The future for birds in a world of global climate change is particularly ...
Strange, Random Arctic Bird Deaths Caused By Climate Change http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.../strange-random-arctic-bir_n_529235.html - Cached
Apr 8, 2010 ... Strange, Random Arctic Bird Deaths Caused By Climate Change. First Posted: .... NRDC: Global Warming Puts the Arctic on Thin Ice. Filed by ...
And of all bird deaths, 30 percent are due to natural causes, like baby birds ..... time and energy protecting birds from global climate change causing evils as you ...
Bird Species and Climate Change - WWF
assets.panda.org/downloads/birdsclimatereportfinal.pdf - Cached - Similar
Bird Species and Climate Change: The Global Status Report. Climate Risk. Conclusive ...... have linked El Niño years with death of adult birds and reduced ...
Learn more about bird deaths | e! Science News
esciencenews.com/dictionary/bird.deaths - Cached
Jan 4, 2011 ... New year fireworks may have caused Arkansas bird deaths ... global climate change," Melanie Driscoll, Audubon's director of bird conservation ...
Climate Change May Be Cause of Seabird Deaths
www-csgc.ucsd.edu/NEWSROOM/.../SeabirdDeaths.html - Cached - Similar
Apr 24, 2007... the result of climate change, a sort of regional footprint of the global warming trend. “I think the bird deaths relate to long-term climate-related ...
Massive bird deaths attributed "polution and climate change ... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az...all... - Cached
Massive bird deaths attributed "polution and climate change. ... threats ranging from pollution and habitat loss to climate change. ... Massive comprehension fail attributed to global warming, pintobean, Jan-08-11 08:51 AM, #5 ...
I bet they want Corvetts and Camaros and Mustangs and Hummers ...
So is the possibility that "they want" sufficient reasoning to have them perpetuate an earth choking future? Oddly the Chinese Government is pursuing renewable green tech with alacrity. Perhaps they know something you don't.
And if we continue to pour our national treasury into the sand of the middle east endlessly pursuing a failed ideology the Chinese will leave US in the dust of 3rd world insignificance.
30
GE sees solar costing less than fossil power in 2017 (assuming we get there)
GE Sees Solar Cheaper Than Fossil Power in Five Years
By Brian Wingfield
Solar power may be cheaper than electricity generated by fossil fuels and nuclear reactors within three to five years because of innovations, said Mark M. Little, the global research director for General Electric Co. (GE)
“If we can get solar at 15 cents a kilowatt-hour or lower, which I’m hopeful that we will do, you’re going to have a lot of people that are going to want to have solar at home,” Little said yesterday in an interview in Bloomberg’s Washington office. The 2009 average U.S. retail rate per kilowatt-hour for electricity ranges from 6.1 cents in Wyoming to 18.1 cents in Connecticut, according to Energy Information Administration data released in April.
GE, based in Fairfield, Connecticut, announced in April that it had boosted the efficiency of thin-film solar panels to a record 12.8 percent. Improving efficiency, or the amount of sunlight converted to electricity, would help reduce the costs without relying on subsidies.
Read more.
Related Posts:
Germany’s solar panels yield more power than…
Germany’s solar panels produce more power than Japan’s entire Fukushima complex
Germany is the world leader in installed solar photovoltaic panels — and they also just shut down seven of their oldest nuclear reactors. Coincidence? Maaaaybe … Anyway, it’s worth noting that just today, total power output of Germany’s installed solar PV panels hit 12.1 GW — greater than the total power output (10 GW) of Japan’s entire 6-reactor nuclear power plant.
Germany to close its nuke plants, move to wind & solar
Germany has built up the clean energy economy that Reagan…
Siemens is getting out of nuclear power
Big Oil does NOT get $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies. It…
Guyman you come across as a spoiled teen of limited intellect and no vision.
That's OK, you can keep your eyes closed and your head in the sand the future will also benefit you in spite of yourself.
Lima, Peru is one of the driest cities on earth. So, a billboard that creates water out of thin air is a refreshing message of hope. http://tinyurl.com/cgbageo
Guyman you come across as a spoiled teen of limited intellect and no vision.
That's OK, you can keep your eyes closed and your head in the sand the future will also benefit you in spite of yourself.
From biomass to biofuel to biochar, Cool Planet is addressing climate change by transforming the fuel production process. They have developed a carbon negative fuel cycle that permanently removes CO2 from the atmosphere by sequestering it in biochar, which is an amazing soil amendment for agriculture. http://www.coolplanet.com/home
From Vermont to Ithaca to Buffalo,Bio Fuels and their production are taking off,there are plenty of jobs within that cycle.Carbon neutrality is possible,and it is not expensive.
True Progressives over here,not weekend liberals.
President Barack Obama
Let us know!