Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Shuckins on February 13, 2007, 08:04:39 AM
-
My only excuse for starting this thread is that I've been ill for about three days with little to do. So I decided to do a little investigating into the costs of converting the U.S. to alternative energy sources.
So here goes.
The world's largest solar power station is currently being constructed in southern Portugal. It will contain 52,000 photovoltaic modules producing 11 megawatts of electrical power.
The station will cover 60 hectares of land equivalent to 6000 square acres and will provide power for approximately 21,000 family homes.
A 200 watt solar panel costs approximately $1000, excluding installation charges.
If that price holds true for the wattage produced by that station, and I realize it might produce electricity cheaper than a standard solar panel, the cost of the station would be around $55,000,000.
Assuming that there are approximately 75-100 million households in the United States....and figuring for our purposes with the larger number....it would take 4,761 such stations to power all the homes in the United States.
The stations would cover approximately 29,000,000 acres and cost approximately $262,000,000,000 to build.
These figures do not take into consideration the number of such stations that would have to be built to supply electrical power for the nation's industrial needs.
__________________
How about it? Any other costs of converting to other power sources that can be reasonably quantified....even if certain assumptions and guestimations have to be made?
-
You didn't factor the economies of scale (note that I've no idea how to do so :D)
-
And you forgot to add in the price of union labor.
-
Well....if I had factored in union labor we would be talking about costs that would be an order of magnitude greater than those I cited.
That would be too frightening to contemplate....especially for those with weak constitutions.
-
that is unless you are a member of the IBEW or more importantly it's leadership.
-
Wait... You mean you were at home LEARNING SOMETHING?
Good thing you're not in Germany... They'd bust down the door and toss you in a mental instutution. Twice in one week. Really.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/feb/07020502.html
And here, the follow-up since it's not over:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54185
ORDNUNG! There will be no education except what is taught by the state! You will comply and report to the re-education camp! Heil...er... we can't say his name because of that OTHER law, but it starts with an H!!!!! Now burn these history books! ACHTUNG!
-
in the near future we will have solar panels using focused mirror that will be on the order of 80% efficient... instead of the 5% or so we have now...
It would be good to offer a billion dollar prize for whoever got there first. It would then be a matter of two four by 8 foot panels providing juice for the entire house and there would be no need to have large power plants..
or... you could panic and have the government build large, useless arrays like the ones mentioned that would become obsolete and cost money to tear down in 10 years or so.
al gore and the chicken littles here would prefer the latter. I would prefer the former.
lazs
-
Cost of doing nothing: Priceless.
Labour costs in Portugal: < 0.00000000000000002 c / hour.
These figures might not be accurate, but...
-
Man.............just think of all the nasty old greenhouse gases that would be put into the air in an attempt to take on such a project. All the trees that would fall by the wayside.
I mean even if it wasn`t a fairy tale. Sheeeeeeeesh!
-
is that why they can afford the extra vowel?
-
lol
Yes, the ONLY thing that will help is solar energy apparently.
Boy, only took three days to figure that one out.
Go ostriches!
-
no curval... but if you want to produce electricity with solar then it is better to spend the money getting decent solar panels than it is to simply mandate or give rebates for every piece of crap that gets bolted to a roof.
Offer prize money for producing cheap clean electrical power. Kill the power plants that burn fossil fuel and make charging a run around electric almost free.
lazs
-
Actually Curve....I've just been ILL for 3 days...it didn't take me that long to come up with those figures. I did THAT this morning.
How about getting into the spirit of the thread. Research one of your favorite solutions to combatting global warming and estimate the total cost.
Or don't you think you're up to the task? :D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
no curval... but if you want to produce electricity with solar then it is better to spend the money getting decent solar panels than it is to simply mandate or give rebates for every piece of crap that gets bolted to a roof.
Offer prize money for producing cheap clean electrical power. Kill the power plants that burn fossil fuel and make charging a run around electric almost free.
lazs
I agree with you actually, as bizarre as that may be.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
How about getting into the spirit of the thread. Research one of your favorite solutions to combatting global warming and estimate the total cost.
Or don't you think you're up to the task? :D
Took five minutes, although I don't have a cost figure:
http://www.theroyalgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060214/NEWS/102140147
Hope you are feeling better.
-
Sounds promising Curval.
I'm doing okay....probably be able to go back to work tomorrow. :(
I assume the turbine in that underwater generator will be turning quite slowly, since it is expected to have little negative environmental impact.
Cost projections?
-
I am anxious to see how the Australian Solar Tower does. I have not seen a cost estimate, but at 155 square acres producing 50MW it seems like it is a lot cheaper than solar.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/01/technology/towerofpower0802.biz2/index.htm?postversion=2006102617
I agree with Lazs, the solution is more efficient solar panels. Tesco is building the world largest rooftop solar array for $13,000,000 and it will only produce 2.6 million kWh per year. As one person noted:
"2.6 million kilowatt hours at say $0.14/kwh (which is high) is only worth about $364,000.00. Divide that into the $13 million cost, and it takes over 35 years to get a positive return on investment, not taking into account and future costs for repairs and maintenance."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/19/tesco_solar_panels/
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Sounds promising Curval.
Cost projections?
I don't know at this point, but I'll check it out and let you know.
-
Originally posted by storch
is that why they can afford the extra vowel?
Bulk lot deals from Vanna can be had very inexpensive.
Capitalization of an I ....................... free for all.
Try a job as a hall monitor.
:D
-
A hectare is just under 2 and a half acres. 60 hectares = 148.26 acres.
-
Oops...Casca's right. I misread the table.
A hectare is equal to 100 ares ....which I read as acres.
So the total square acreage covered by the 4,761 units is off.
The actual square acreage is 704, 654.
-
Anyone got time to figure out how many nuclear power plants would be required and their costs?
-
This (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2007/01/29/the_power_of_rocks/) looks interesting for a possible alternative energy source. All you need to do is figure out how to drill a really deep hole and tap into the geothermal energy under the earth's crust.
-
Here's a cool one, based on the mixing of fresh water with saltwater through a specially constructed membrane:
http://www.kema.com/corporate/news/consulting_services/2004/q2/blue_energy.asp (http://www.kema.com/corporate/news/consulting_services/2004/q2/blue_energy.asp)
Also, wind power is one of the fastest growing forms of electrical power generation. Capital costs for installation of a utility-scale wind turbine are around a million dollars per megawatt, but there is no fuel cost and maintenance costs are small. Zero emissions, too. Its not a satisfactory solution everywhere, but there is plenty of wind resource in the Mid and Western U.S., and along the coasts. One of limiting factors to continued growth in the Midwest is powerline transmission capacity -- out of the wind rich regions to areas where the population needs the power.
Another limiting factor is the intermittancy of wind, but there are a few energy storage technologies being experimented with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Cost_and_growth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Cost_and_growth)
I guess I don't envision a single technology solving the problem - I think it would be better to have a mix of different technologies.
-
Originally posted by Casca
This (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2007/01/29/the_power_of_rocks/) looks interesting for a possible alternative energy source. All you need to do is figure out how to drill a really deep hole and tap into the geothermal energy under the earth's crust.
It has already been done. My grandfather made alot of money in a company called Magma Power back in the 70s or early 80s. It was a technology he believed in and put his money where his mouth was.
-
It's not being done on any meaningful scale (except in special cases like Iceland).
edit: I did some research since I posted the above and was surprised at how much geothermal energy is produced globally. It seems like a promising technology to replace a lot of fossil fuel energy.
-
Whether you want to deal with solar or wind power you have to factor in a few more things than just how many of each. Since neither one of these sources provide power 24/7 you must have a storage device for the power that is not consumed at the time of production. You obviously will not get solar at night. Nor will you get adequate solar in cloudy days. You won't get wind power in non windy days or days that do not have sufficient wind for full draw days.
Each will require placement of the devices in a position to obtain the source of energy. Solar panels take up quite a bit of space and must be placed in a sunshine rich environment. To get maximum power output they must be set to track the sun so that the rays hit as close to perpendicular as possible.
For wind power you must erect wind turbines. They also take up space and in order to provide as clear a path for wind to them they must be placed where there are no obstructions. That means no trees, buildings or other structures.
At each location there will have to be some kind of electrical storage device, in other words, batteries. That's going to be a LOT of batteries to provide storage for the millions of megawatts consumed. Don't forget that power must also be transported to the point of use ands will need additional boost and transformer stations along the way. Enough power must be stored to provide peak demand needs for people during cloudy rainy and non windy periods at the point of production.
Another consideration is the environmental impact of placing these structures. Wind turbines kill birds. Will they have to be placed in accordance with engangered species and or flyway considersations? Solar panels take up space and deny plants a place to live by blocking the sun. The best solar places are in the desert along with some of the best wind generation points. The impact on plants will also impact other endangered species that live in the desert. The SW desert is a very fragile place and MUST be protected.
Oh nooes! Another issue, population encroachment. It's already happening with farmland and the SW desert areas are one of, if not the fastest growing population area. The NIMBY folks will not want those ugly towers taking up the view of the skyline. Acres of solar panels?!?!?! Absolutely not in the pristine desert!
-
Mav,
That is the beauty of the approach I posted above...tidal currents do not stop when it gets cloudy or less windy.
No birds get killed.
No land use (above ground) is necessary.
Negative vibes...always with the negative vibes.
;)
-
Curve,
Has there been an epa study to determine the impact on the seal life, coral reefs, current changes, fish migration, predator vs prey in the local area not to mention the potential impact of raising the temperature of the ocean?
Those were some of the same impact concerns for other sea related construction.
They're not negative vibes, they are realistic implication considerations for what are often pie in the sky ideas. Think about them now before they come back and bite you later on.
-
Have we taken into account the effect of bouncing all that light back into the atmosphere? It might make things worse.
I say Cheers! we are all screwed anyways!
-
Understood....but where are all the studies about how harmful fossil fuel burning has been....oh wait...those are the ones that everyone in here poo poos and then claims that global warming is a myth.
"Think about them now before they come back and bite you later on."
Do I start calling you a tree hugging hippy now?
-
Mav - regarding the widespread myth that wind turbines are mauling bird populations, the National Renewable Energy Lab has this to say:
MYTH:Wind turbines kill birds and thus have serious environmental impacts. Bird kills have caused serious scientific concern at only one location in the United States: Altamont Pass in California, one of the first areas in the country to experience significant wind development. Over the past decade, the wind community has learned that wind farms and wildlife can and do coexist successfully. Wind energy development’s overall impact on birds is extremely low (<1 of 30,000) compared to other human-related causes, such as buildings, communications towers, traffic, and house cats. Birds can fly into wind turbines, as they do with other tall structures. However, conventional fuels contribute to air and water pollution that can have far greater impact on wildlife and their habitat, as well as the environment and human health.
Also, there is no battery storage at wind farms. The turbines are connected into electrical substations and their output is fed directly to the power grid.
-
Its not that we think global warming is a myth, its we think the C02 effect has been exaggerated. We are dealing with a very complex and chaotic system, to say C02 is THE reason for global warming is highly simplistic at best and extremely reckless at worst.
Current atmospheric models do not allow us to predict the weather past a few days, therefore trying to predict the climate years or decades into the future is extremely naive.
Don't buy into the current mass hysteria generted by followers of global warming doctrine. Do your own reading from all sources pro and con and make an informed opinion for yourself.
-
Vertex,
With all due respect I suggest you check out the Global Warming threads that are all over this BBS. Most posters agree that there is climate changes going on but state quite openly that mankind is not responsible.
I'm having a read of Mav's favourite group's website, the EPA:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
Some interesting stuff in there.
-
Thanks for that Curval I'll have a look.
In this country, Canada, acceptance of global warming and manmade C02 as the cause has become mainstream thinking, also The UN as embraced the idea wholehartedly. I am very concerned.
You might want to check out some recent stories run in the national post.
They did a 10 part series called THE DENIERS, it was very interesting.
If you google DR Shariv and click on the first link called The Real Deal you will get to the national post website that has the entire series. It is a good read.
-
Oboe,
The bit about the feed into the power grid is not quite true if you are taking the rest of the "not green" production out of the loop. The wind turbines can add to the grid but only if there is a main supply the wind power is supplementing, not as a primary source. Wind is viable as a supplement to the power grid not the main source of electricity. Once the wind dies to a low level there would be no source.
The impact on birds is low now since there are few wind farms in existance. How about when the numbers increase to blanket areas? How about in close relation to a wetland or migration flyway? Remember you are talking a far greater number than what we have now. Frankly even then I still think it would be bogus but it is an arguement levied by those who's interest is birds, not electricity. You still have to assess the impact, real and perceived, to defuse the situation and allow some project to go ahead.
Curve, you can call me most anything except late for supper. I'll just consider the source. :p
I'm not a "hippy" and although as an outdoorsman and fan of nature I am more of a tree hugger than the usual person who has not spent any time in the wild. I also understand the interplay between nature and man's possible relationship to it rather than opponent.
I brought up those things because that's what I have seen argued in the development of the area (SW) where I have spent most of my life to date. "Progress bad, utilities bad, population increase bad so all you other folks leave me to enjoy this area selfishly". Oh and BTW make sure I can run my TV, computer, AC, heat, pool, spa etc. as much as I want but you guys have to cut back. Don't forget you can't build in the foothills above the height of the fancy houses already there. You'll spoil the natural view......:rolleyes:
This area really IS the epitome of NIMBY. :cry
-
mav.. you really wouldn't need storage with solar unless you wanted to be independent of the grid.
You would still need power plants but your cost would be almost nothing since you would sell back the power you didn't use and buy when you needed it (at night) the power plants could be smaller and they would sell the power you sold them to factories and other high demand users.
lazs
-
Mav,
Agreed, wind power will not be the primary source on the grid. But it has room to increase significantly. Absolutely siting studies should be done and bird kill (actually bats, too) studies should continue. Siting wind farms near wetlands and in migratory flyways should be prohibited, but even with those restrictions there is plenty of room for development.
There are experimental storage facilities in the works - for example, in central Iowa, a wind farm is going to power air compressors to pump air into underground caverns - then the air is going to be released to power generating turbines. Other plans include using excess electricity on windy days to power electrolysis units to separate oxygen and hydrogen from water. When the wind dies, the hydrogen and oxygen will be recombined to produce electricity. AFAIK, there has been no magic bullet discovered yet, but I think its wise to keep trying different things and see what works best.
One of the most embarrassing and egregious examples of NIMBY I think is Ted Kennedy's opposition to America's first planned offshore windfarm. Unfortunately it will be just visible from his and a bunch of his blueblood supporter's houses on Cape Cod. Really indefensible and hypocritical.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
The stations would cover approximately 29,000,000 acres and cost approximately $262,000,000,000 to build.
Cost of Iraq war could surpass $1 trillion (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/) that's 1000 000 000 000, aprox 4 times more than you need,
btw,1 hectare=2.4 acres, not 100 acres
-
Been waiting for someone to compare it to the cost of the Iraq war.
I think of spending on domestic, renewable energy sources as an investment, not so much a cost.
Is the Iraq War an investment or a cost? It really doesn't look good from where I sit.
-
I have it on good authority that there are thousands apon thousands of square miles in Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico that get plenty of sun light and are for the most part completly devoid of just about everything.
But the environmentalist might get into some type of hippie civil war due to the endangerment of some insignificant desert weed (See: California Imperial Valley Sand Dunes, endangered weed (http://www.outdoorwire.com/access/columns/letters/namd_imperial.htm) )
-
The Real cost of Global warming will be in lives not in dollars.;)
-
"Curve, you can call me most anything except late for supper. I'll just consider the source. "
lol Mav.
I just found it funny that you immediately yelled for an epa study. That's commie talk!
-
Well, I thought nuclear energy would work if we could find a way to neutralize radioactive waste. I found this (http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/NuclearRemediation/Vesperman/index.html)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
mav.. you really wouldn't need storage with solar unless you wanted to be independent of the grid.
You would still need power plants but your cost would be almost nothing since you would sell back the power you didn't use and buy when you needed it (at night) the power plants could be smaller and they would sell the power you sold them to factories and other high demand users.
lazs
Laz the whole idea was to replace power generation by burning hydrocarbons with solar and wind. That's going to take a real big section of the "grid" away. Once the sun goes down how is solar going to help again without having stored the electricity some how? This isn't for small home production it's replacing a significant chunk of the entire grid.
The point I was trying to make, and I'll try to be very clear about it, is that neither solar or wind are going to supply the amount of electricity consistently, reliably and for 24/7 like the hydrocarbon source does. They can provide electricity but only when the wind is blowing strongly enough or the sun is shining. (or both) They can't provide the electricity in as small a space as hydrocarbon production. The excess produced will need some kind of storage device for use at night and during times of calm air if it is to be used in those times.
Hydroelectric doesn't supply the needs for electricity if hydrocarbon production is gone. I don't imagine that nuclear production is going to be thought of very well for some time if ever by the greenies either.
-
Originally posted by Curval
"Curve, you can call me most anything except late for supper. I'll just consider the source. "
lol Mav.
I just found it funny that you immediately yelled for an epa study. That's commie talk!
Like I said I was just repeating the same arguements that were used in this rather liberally green minded area I grew up in. I'm not a fan of the epa having had to deal with them through the Army when the greenies started to interfere in training.
-
My physics teacher always used to harp on us, "Where is this energy coming from? Have you suddenly found a way to create energy?" when we'd screw up energy problems.
If we place down 600,000 acres of solar panels, never mind WHERE we would put them, we'd be robbing 600,000 acres of life of energy.
What effect would that have on the environment?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
My physics teacher always used to harp on us, "Where is this energy coming from? Have you suddenly found a way to create energy?" when we'd screw up energy problems.
If we place down 600,000 acres of solar panels, never mind WHERE we would put them, we'd be robbing 600,000 acres of life of energy.
What effect would that have on the environment?
what enviroment ? in sunny AZ, South east CA,Nevada wouldn't disturb the sandy lifeless enviroment ,few cactus, rattle snakes , and lot of sunny days, US has some the best places for that kind of power stations
-
ghi,
Don't take this personally because you're probably just repeating crap you've probably read or heard, but have you ever studied those so-called "lifeless" areas? I bet not. They are actually fully developed and diverse ecosystems. The idea that you can spread out energy farms in the desert without harming anything is nothing more than an expression of a typically ignorant city-dweller version of mindless eco-activism.
I've spent enough time in the desert to have a knowledgable appreciation for those ecosystems, and lasersailor has the right idea even if it's a bit short on details. Desert ecosystems are among the most fragile on the planet, even if city dwellers and those who live in more humid climates can't see what's out there until it's pointed out to them.
Putting up acres of solar panels that block both sunlight and divert necessary rainfall would irrevocably change or destroy those areas because life of all kinds in the desert are very specifically adapted to those conditions and changes like that can easily wipe out a species just as quickly as clear-cutting forest.
-
Yea..........what would we ever do without rattlesnakes and horned toads in the desert? The total horror.
-
60 hectares x 4.761 = 2.856 sq.km, an area 53x53 km.
Plonk it down in Arizona ;)
now go from 5% efficiency to Lazs estimated 80%, - that's 1/16th, which makes you need an area of 178 sq. km. That's about 13x13 km, a square to you in the U.S. of A. only abobe 8x8 miles.
That's not at all so much.
Anyway, wanted toask about something different. Does anyone of you have an idea where to find small equipment for getting energy out of the wind. I'm talking 30 KW or even less, while I have difficulties finding anything under 500 KW. I'm thinking about my home.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Anyway, wanted toask about something different. Does anyone of you have an idea where to find small equipment for getting energy out of the wind. I'm talking 30 KW or even less, while I have difficulties finding anything under 500 KW. I'm thinking about my home.
A Chevy fan blade from a 350 CI, two pulleys, a fan belt from an Edsel hooked to a generator from a Nash Rambler. Place equipment next to the O`club. All the power you need to run the normal household.
CAUTION: A rev limiter will have to be used to avoid total destruction.
:D
-
Angus try here.....http://www.acsolar.com/wind.html (http://www.acsolar.com/wind.html)
-
mav.. the benifiets of solar panels on homes would be immense. It would amount to free or near free electricity for citizens.. they would be selling back power to the plants during the day. the grid would not be taxed so badly... the real power usage in the U.S. is in the daytime.. homes would actually be helping to power industry.
electric commute cars would be much more feasable with very cheap power.
right now, homes are being built with the crappy government sponsored (rebate hell) panels and it takes half the roof but they end up getting the power bill down to a net of almost zero over the year (meter runs backwards much of the time).
If you had 80% efficient panels that tracked the sun... How much hardship would having two of em on your roof or back yard be? They would be selling kits at home depot.
I still believe that nuke plants need to be built tho.
I predict that like internet service and long distance phone service.. the cost of electricity will go down in the future not up. Might be a period of adjustment when it goes up because we cling to old power generation ideas but... if the government stays out of it... we should start seeing some inovative ideas.
lazs
-
This thread is not turning out the way I suspected it would...at all.
It's actually quite a sensible one.
:huh
-
Originally posted by Angus
Anyway, wanted toask about something different. Does anyone of you have an idea where to find small equipment for getting energy out of the wind. I'm talking 30 KW or even less, while I have difficulties finding anything under 500 KW. I'm thinking about my home.
Check out the turbines they use on sailboats. Small, quiet, good power generation. Nicer models come with clutches to prevent over-speed in higher than normal wind. Outputs vary pretty widely, but iirc, typical models can put out 400W in good winds.
It's not a choice for a stand-alone system for a home, but it's a good supplement to a complete micro-generation setup... solar panels, wind turbines, water turbines, whatever your property can handle.
-
Originally posted by ghi
what enviroment ? in sunny AZ, South east CA,Nevada wouldn't disturb the sandy lifeless enviroment ,few cactus, rattle snakes , and lot of sunny days, US has some the best places for that kind of power stations
You can't wire the power across the United States.
And you can't wire it for distances too far. Plopping down the solar panels in the desert only covers a tiny percent of the power of the US. Where are you going to put them elsewhere?
And who's to say that putting the solar panels in the desert won't ruin that environment?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
mav.. the benifiets of solar panels on homes would be immense. It would amount to free or near free electricity for citizens.. they would be selling back power to the plants during the day. the grid would not be taxed so badly... the real power usage in the U.S. is in the daytime.. homes would actually be helping to power industry.
electric commute cars would be much more feasable with very cheap power.
right now, homes are being built with the crappy government sponsored (rebate hell) panels and it takes half the roof but they end up getting the power bill down to a net of almost zero over the year (meter runs backwards much of the time).
If you had 80% efficient panels that tracked the sun... How much hardship would having two of em on your roof or back yard be? They would be selling kits at home depot.
I still believe that nuke plants need to be built tho.
I predict that like internet service and long distance phone service.. the cost of electricity will go down in the future not up. Might be a period of adjustment when it goes up because we cling to old power generation ideas but... if the government stays out of it... we should start seeing some inovative ideas.
lazs
We're beginning with a project like this up here, in the farmlands.
The farmers that have some resource, typically a little stream, harness the energy, say up to 1 MW, and sell it to the network minus their own use.
Same might be up with windfarming. And since most farms are hooked up with the powergrid anyway.....
And then there is the wind. You have sunny areas and shady. You have windy areas and calm.
Ours is windy, but most of the sun is around when you need the least of energy.
So, I'm game for a wind project.
Lazs, Jackal, as much we have been tossing around, I appreciate your feedback and input on this. I will also post if I have some findings that turn into a project, - or a deeper question.
-
Originally posted by Angus
60 hectares x 4.761 = 2.856 sq.km, an area 53x53 km.
Plonk it down in Arizona ;)
now go from 5% efficiency to Lazs estimated 80%, - that's 1/16th, which makes you need an area of 178 sq. km. That's about 13x13 km, a square to you in the U.S. of A. only abobe 8x8 miles.
That's not at all so much.
Anyway, wanted toask about something different. Does anyone of you have an idea where to find small equipment for getting energy out of the wind. I'm talking 30 KW or even less, while I have difficulties finding anything under 500 KW. I'm thinking about my home.
Angus, check out Southwest windpower:
http://www.windenergy.com/index_wind.htm (http://www.windenergy.com/index_wind.htm)
The Skystream is a 1.8kW unit. The Whisper 500 is rated at about 3 kW I think.
-
Interesting article about some research that goes against the accepted orthodoxy of man-made global warming.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
Interesting how hard it was to get their work published, and how little attention it received once it was.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Interesting article about some research that goes against the accepted orthodoxy of man-made global warming.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
Interesting how hard it was to get their work published, and how little attention it received once it was.
must be a report made of those Scientists offered cash by Exxon to dispute climate study (http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html):)
-
Interesting, but doe's anyone know how the authors measured the sun's output during the Little Ice Age, or the Medieval Warming period?