If It’s Good Enough For The Queen Why Not Us – America is always behind

Maybe that will change with a Democrat in the White House:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/22/technology/queen_turbine.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008092212

Her majesty’s big,

honkin’ windmill

The Queen of England is buying

 the world’s largest wind turbine,

which towers over Big Ben and

will light up thousands of British

homes.

By Todd Woody, senior editor

Last Updated: September 22, 2008: 12:15 PM EDT

(Fortune Magazine) — It’s been a century or so since Britain ruled the waves, but Queen Elizabeth II will soon reign over the wind. Earlier this year the Crown Estate, which manages royal property worth $14 billion and controls the seas up to 14 miles off the British coast, agreed to purchase – for an undisclosed sum – the world’s largest wind turbine.

It’s a 7.5-megawatt monster to be built by Clipper Windpower of Carpinteria, Calif. Now the Royal Turbine is getting even bigger: Clipper has revealed to Fortune that Her Majesty’s windmill has been supersized to ten megawatts, producing five times the power generated by typical big turbines currently in commercial operation. The giant’s wingspan stretches the length of two soccer fields. At 574 feet, the turbine soars over Big Ben and roughly equals 111 Queen Elizabeths (the actual queen) plus one corgi stacked on top of one another.

The Queen’s turbine will displace two million barrels of oil as well as 724,000 tons of CO2 over its lifetime. This prototype will be the flagship for Clipper’s Britannia Project, an effort to create a new generation of massive-megawatt turbines to be placed on deep-sea floating platforms. When the windmill goes online in 2012 somewhere off the British coast, it could power 3,700 average homes.

 http://gizmodo.com/5053873/queen-of-england-buying-the-worlds-largest-wind-turbine

 We don’t know how much it cost her, but word is that the Queen of England has put down some mega-bucks to buy the world’s largest wind turbine. The 10-megawatt monster machine built by Clipper Windpower of Carpinteria, California will have a wingspan larger than two soccer fields and will stand 574 feet tall when completed. The windmill is expected to displace two million barrels of oil as well as 724,000 tons of CO2 over its lifetime. It will also serve as the flagship for Clipper’s Britannia Project, an effort to produce massive new turbines on deep-sea floating platforms. If all goes as planned, the Queen’s windmill will light up thousands of British homes starting in 2012.

:}

No To 100 Nukes – Thanks for that.

We waited breathlessly last night to find out if we would be building 50 nukes with a goal of 100. The answer NAH. Energy drenched America may have finally woken up.

http://kids.niehs.nih.gov/lyrics/happydays.htm

[Music and Lyrics by J. Yellen and M. Ager]

So long sad times
Go long bad times
We are rid of you at last

Howdy gay times
Cloudy gray times
You are now a thing of the past

Happy days are here again
The skies above are clear again
So let’s sing a song of cheer again
Happy days are here again

Altogether shout it now
There’s no one
Who can doubt it now
So let’s tell the world about it now
Happy days are here again

Your cares and troubles are gone
There’ll be no more from now on
From now on …

Happy days are here again
The skies above are clear again
So, Let’s sing a song of cheer again

Happy times
Happy nights
Happy days
Are here again!

Contact NIEHS (NIH, DHHS)
Children’s Privacy and Other Disclaimers
NIEHS Sing-Along Index
NIEHS Kids Page Main Index

Gas Prices In Springfield Illinois Fall To 1.85$$ – We are all going to die!

Conspiracy theoriests say that this is the result of collusion between, Big Oil, Dick Cheney, President Bush, the Big Refiners, the Gasoline Dealerships and certain Rich Republicans (you know who you are) to artifishally lower the price of Oil and Gasoline to steal the election from Barack Obama and hand it to John McCain. Damn that was a long sentence.

It’s not because the Oil Markets were destabilized by speculators for the first time in nearly 100 years and prices are going to swing widely as a result. I bet Oil Prices go to 40$$ per barrel, before they skyrocket out of sight again. The Saudi’s are getting soaked. That sucking sound you hear is billions of Saudi $$s flowing into the US. I imagine at some point the Saudi’s will take murder contracts out on the hedge fund managers, the super wealthy, and the currency traders who caused all this craziness in the first place. Which is fitting I suppose.

I am busy with the election so maybe no energy post to follow but Dan Piraro asked me to pass along a couple of cartoons that were rejected by a really really famous magazine that ethics prevents us from naming (Time):

 http://bizarrocomic.blogspot.com/

 piraro_time_01sm.jpg

 piraro_time_02sm.jpg

If you find the titles too hard to read the first one says “mommy is too tired to run her hands under your bed clothes tonight, honey” and the other one says “let me put my glasses on because it doesn’t look as big as you said”

And if you believe that well you probably believe the conspiracy theory above. Oh go to dan’s web site and click on the cartoons. They magically get bigger and then you can read the print.

GET OUT AND VOTE!

Just In Time For Halloween – Want to be buried in a reef?

I have heard of sleeping with the fishes but how would you like to be turned into a reef. Help the sea, help the sea life and help the environment in general. Kind of hard for relatives to visit but I guess they give you photos:

 http://www.welt.de/english-news/article2615803/Sea-burials-help-rebuild-reefs.html

Sea burials help rebuild reefs

23.October 2008, 15:21

A company is marketing a service for those who want to help the environment in the afterlife, or forever be part of the memories at a sports stadium. They are offering a burial service that is supposed to be an environmentally friendly and less expensive alternative to traditional burials.

 How is it done? Cremated remains are mixed into the concrete used to make so-called reef balls that it places at sites along the U.S. East Coast.

Tags

Those interested in helping build a reef in a body of water don’t have to wait until they die, said Eternal Reefs CEO George Frankel.

“Not at all, but when you do, it is a great way to help the bay,“ Frankel said.

The concept developed from reef-building efforts by the Reef Ball Foundation, which has placed more than a half-million of the concrete domes worldwide. Many want to mark a birth or other special occasion, while others simply want to foster underwater life. A memorial reef ball costs between $2,495 and $6,495, although the cost of cremation is not included, he said.

The Chesapeake Bay site on the U.S. East Coast where eight of the memorials were placed earlier this month, for example, already has about 600 put there by a variety of groups and organizations above the rubble from Memorial Stadium, the former home of the Baltimore Orioles baseball team in Maryland.

The burial service is one of a growing number of funeral alternatives ranging from having your ashes launched into space, compressed into a diamond or buried in a biodegradable urn. In the waters off Miami, the Neptune Memorial Reef offers an underwater burial place for cremated remains, as well as an attraction for divers who can swim among its gates, paths and statuary.

 Sylvia Rennick of Kings Mountain, North Carolina, said the idea of her son’s memorial helping the Chesapeake Bay appealed to her more than a traditional cemetery plot.

“You’re around live things, it’s not all dead,“ Rennick said before her son’s memorial was lowered by crane onto the reef under sunny skies as family members threw flowers into the bay and read poems.

Afterward, she said the crew gave another of her sons the chart location of the site and he planned to visit it when he went fishing.

:}

They borrowed the idea from these folks:

 http://www.reefball.org/index.html

The Reef Ball Foundation is a 501(c) 3 publicly supported non-profit and international environmental NGO working to rehabilitate marine reefs.

Our mission is to rehabilitate our world’s oceanreef ecosystems and to protect our natural reef systems using Reef Ball artificial reef technologies. Reef Balls are artificial reef modules placed in the ocean to form reef habitat.

We have placed Reef Balls™ in 59+ countries and our projects have a global reach of 70+ countries.  We have conducted over 3,500 projects and deployed over 1/2 million Reef Balls.

Our projects include designed artificial reefs, ground breaking coral propagation and planting systems, estuary restoration, red mangrove plantings, oyster reef restoration, erosion control (often beach erosion), and expert collaberation on a variety of oceanic issues.

We work with governments, other NGOs, businesses, schools, research institutes, private individuals and community organizations and emphasize education on preserving and protecting our natural reefs.

 (WIKI Reef Ball Foundation for history/facts)

NEW! Reef Ball “Live” Updates
Post or View Current Reef Ball Project Activities.
Our Chairman posts updates here on a regular basis.

:}

Here is what they look like, new with you in them.

 possib5.jpg

:}

Here is what they look like after you have been in the reef for awhile.

 possib3.jpg

 :}

If you are looking for other companies willing to burn you, put you in cement shoes and plant you in the ocean:

http://www.eternalreefs.com/about/foundation.html

ETERNAL REEFS

Our Story
Eternal Reefs began simply. In the late 1980’s a pair of college roommates from the University of Georgia often went diving off the Keys in Florida on breaks. Over the years of diving they saw significant deterioration and degradation of the reefs they were visiting. Don Brawley, founder of Eternal Reefs realized the reefs needed help. A decision was made to do something about the reefs’ declining health.

Once the friends were out of school they began to talk about what contributions they could make that would help protect and restore these fragile eco-systems. Creating a material and system that would replicate the natural marine environment that supports coral and microorganism development was what they decided to do. And thus the concept of the Reef Ball was formed – to directly rehabilitate and rebuild the dying reefs and to add new habitat to the marine environment.

They faced two primary design challenges. Stability would be crucial. The design needed to be capable of absorbing and dissipating energy in the marine environment without moving. It would need to withstand not just the normal tidal and current flows, but also major storms and the dynamic energy impacts that accompany them.
In 1990, the Reef Ball Development Group and the Reef Ball Foundation completed the first Reef Ball project near Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Since that time, there have been over 3,500 projects worldwide with more than 400,000 Reef Balls placed on the ocean floor. With years of documented history of stability and habitat development, Reef Balls have become the world standard for fisheries programs, coral restoration and habitat development projects.

In 1998, Carleton Glen Palmer, Don Brawley’s father-in-law, talked about having his cremated remains put in a reef. As Carleton put it, “I can think of nothing better than having all that action going on around me all the time after I am gone – just make sure that the location has lots of red snapper and grouper.” Shortly after Carleton made this request, he passed away.

https://www.nmreef.com/

NEPTUNE MEMORIAL REEF

The Neptune Memorial Reef project is the largest man made reef ever conceived and provides an extraordinary living resting place for the departed, an environmental and ecological masterpiece, a superb laboratory for marine biologists, students, researchers and ecologists, and an aesthetically exquisite, world-class destination for visitors from all walks of life.       

:}

Green Sex Life – Yes its true, you can do it in the dark

OKOKOK talk about pandering:

 http://planetgreen.discovery.com/go-green/sex/index.html

How to Go Green Sex..:}

[by Jacob Gordon]

Whether you’re single and playing the field, settled down with that special someone, or someplace in between, most of us consider good, satisfying, sexy sex an important part of this complete breakfast. It might not be the first thing we think of while working towards a sustainable and graceful life on this fragile planet, but there’s a lot we can do to make our sex lives greener. In the process of greening the ecological footprint of our love making, we might also open up some new doors to deeper pleasure, satisfaction, and romantic connection.

Buzz up!I can’t go on but for more you can go here: 

http://evilbeet.blogspot.com/2007/03/green-sex.html http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2005/04/13/gree.DTL

http://blogs.takepart.com/2008/04/09/top-10-ways-to-green-up-your-sex-life/ 

http://buzzfeed.com/buzz/Green_Sex

 http://www.eartherotics.com/

 http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/eco-sex-guide

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/eco_kink_japans.php

 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19333870/

 http://www.usnews.com/blogs/fresh-greens/2008/10/15/sex-sells-green-pinup-girl-calendars.html

I could go on but I think they already have.

:}

Presidential Energy Policy – What if Community Energy Systems was running for President?

What would our collective Presidential Energy Policy look like? :

1. Ban the sale of Gasoline and Diesel as of January 2015, except 1 gallon containers and Heavy Transport Trucks.

2. Ban Diesel and Gasoline sales to Heavey Transport Trucks by 2018.

This would allow everyone to keep mowing their grass and having their backyard barbeques while the USA shifts its transportation capacity to cleaner safer fuels.

3. Ban the Burning of coal in Electrical Generating Stations in 2020.

That would require switching all those plants to another fuel source, probably natural gas.

4. Fund 3 Hot Rocks Power Stations. One in California to replace Diablo Nuclear Power Plant, One to replace Clinton Nuclear Power Plant in Illinois and one to replace Savannah Nuclear Power Plant in Georgia. This would begin the proceess of Converting our economy to geothermal energy on existing sites where Nukes should not be in the first place.

This would proceed for all Nuclear Power Plants in the nation.

 5. Create and support manditory energy conservation programs in both the residential market and the commercial market to reduce their consumption by 50%.

Lets insulate and modernize our world.

6. Order all Landfill operaters and Waste Haulers to begin the mining of all landfills and dumps for metals, glass, plastics and and paper products. Compost the rest.

7. Mandate that all materials be recycled with the goal of a steady state materials economy in the USA by 2020

8. Using tax incentives to increase the Market share of solar, geothermal and wind generation by 25% per year until the USA is largely energy self sufficient.

9. Create a maglev train system in the USA

10. Create a light rail system in the top 50 major markets.

11. Ban the sale of diesel fuel to the railroads in 2025.

12. Open the Yucca Mountain repository by Executive Order if necessary and order all spent nuclear materials to be stored there.

To pay for this I would cut the military budgets of the following services: reduce the Navy to 2 active Fleets, one on the West Coast, one on the East Coast; reduce the Army to 4 batallions; reduce the Airforce to 4 Airwings; leave the Marines alone.

To pay for these policies I would slash the Pentagon staff in half, and the “spying budget” by 1/3.

To pay for these policies I would close the Federal Office of Education. Then I would start in on some of the stupid Federal Budget items that we as tax payers fund, like closing the National Helium Repository in Texas. We sure won’t need the Strategic Petroleum Resevre.

This program would create million of new good paying jobs. Put this country back to work and not flipping burgers at McDonalds.

Barack Obama Beats John McCain – On Energy Policy that is and it wasn’t even close.

And it really did not have to be this way. One substitution could have changed the balance. If instead of 45 Nuclear Generating Stations he would have said 45 Hot Rocks Stations, then he would have generated as much capitol, created as many new jobs and generated as much electricity as his 45 Nukes. In fact it would have made him greener than Barack who I pointed out has “put in a little bit” for everybody and ends up maybe not getting the job done. The other place that Barack wins is with energy conservation. It is a big part of his plan and is nowhere in John’s. So all in all Obama’s plan is the best.

This is no endorsement. There is more to the Presidency than Energy Policy. Foreign Policy,  Military Policy, and Fiscal Policy are probably more important for his initial year in office. But Energy relates to all of those issues in an integral way.

And Obama has come so far:

www.obamamagazine.com

obama1.jpg

weblogs.newsday.com

obama3.jpg

 barackobama.imagelibrarys.com

obama2.jpg

www.politicogod.com

obama4.jpg

:}

The last one is my all time favorite because it was taken in Metropolis Illinois, during the Superman Festival. 

:}

Barack Obama’s Energy Policies – Please note that his Energy Policies and His Climate Policies are on one page

John McCain just does not get it. The Energy situation we are in and the Climate situation we are in are one and the same thing. For now let me say that in debate and in arguementation, when someone lists every possible answer they can think of, I think that they don’t know what they are talking about. That was John McCain’s approach. Obama’s policies are brief, pointed and focused.

The Obama-Biden comprehensive New Energy for America plan will:

     

  • Provide short-term relief to American families facing pain at the pump
  • Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.
  • Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.
  • Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars — cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon — on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.
  • Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
  • Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

ENERGY PLAN OVERVIEW:

Provide Short-term Relief to American Families

• Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families.
• Crack Down on Excessive Energy Speculation.
• Swap Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Cut Prices.

Learn More…
 

Eliminate Our Current Imports from the Middle East and Venezuela within 10 Years

• Increase Fuel Economy Standards.
• Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015.
• Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles.
• Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
• A “Use it or Lose It” Approach to Existing Oil and Gas Leases.
• Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.

Learn More…
 

Create Millions of New Green Jobs

• Ensure 10 percent of Our Electricity Comes from Renewable Sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
• Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source – Energy Efficiency.
• Weatherize One Million Homes Annually.
• Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology.
• Prioritize the Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline.

Learn More…
 

:}
Please go to the site and look at the videos. They are very cool.
:}

The Down Side To Wind – It’s not like passing gas

OK so it is Friday and I miss Weird Bird Friday.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/080924-pf-wind-energy.html

5 Myths About Wind Energy

By Michael Schirber

Wind energy might be the simplest renewable energy to understand. Yet there are misconceptions about what makes the wind industry turn.

The United States now has nearly 17,000 megawatts of wind power installed, which can supply about 1.2 percent of the nation’s demand for electricity, according to a recent report from the Department of Energy (DOE).

With these numbers projected to grow in the coming years, it might be good to be aware of a few myths that are blowing in the wind.

1. Wind is cheap

No one owns the wind, so it might seem like wind energy should cost less than other technologies that require costly fuel, such as coal or natural gas, to operate.

However, the initial investment for wind energy is high.

2. America is way behind the rest of the world

Denmark gets 20 percent of its energy from wind. Germany has the most wind turbines of any country. China is set to nearly double its wind energy capacity in just one year.

3. Wind turbines are loud

Wind turbines used to be loud, but newer designs are less so.

4. Wind turbines kill birds

This one is actually true, but the problem is not as bad as some people claim.

The impression that all turbines are dangerous to birds comes from Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area in California. This was one of the first big wind farms, and unfortunately it was placed in a migratory bird pathway, Moriarty said.

5. Any house can own a windmill

Unless you have a good chunk of land around your house, it’s probably not a good idea to get a wind turbine. If it’s too close to buildings or trees, the wind will be turbulent and won’t produce the power that it’s supposed to.

:}

And if you think that isn’t enough Myths well hell:

http://www.bwea.com/energy/myths.html

Wind Energy

Top Myths About Wind Energy

Many people make many claims about wind turbines and the effects that they allegedly have. We’ve collated our favourites and given the answers.

  1. Myth: Tens of thousands of wind turbines will be cluttering the British countryside
    Fact: Government legislation requires that by 2010, 10% of electricity supply must come from renewable sources. Wind power is currently the most cost effective renewable energy technology in a position to help do that. Around 3,500 additional modern wind turbines are all that would be needed to deliver 8% of the UK’s electricity by 2010, roughly 2,000 onshore and 1,500 offshore.
  2. Myth: Wind farms won’t help climate change
    Fact: Wind power is a clean, renewable source of energy which produces no greenhouse gas emissions or waste products. The UK currently emits 560 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2), the key greenhouse gas culprit, every year and the Government target is to cut this by 60% by 20501. Power stations are the largest contributor to carbon emissions, producing 170 million tonnes of CO2 each year2. We need to switch to forms of energy that do not produce CO2. Just one modern wind turbine will save over 4,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions annually3.
  3. Myth: Building a wind farm takes more energy than it ever makes
    Fact: The average wind farm will pay back the energy used in its manufacture within 3-5 months of operation4. This compares favourably with coal or nuclear power stations, which take about six months. A modern wind turbine is designed to operate for more than 20 years and at the end of its working life, the area can be restored at low financial and environmental costs. Wind energy is a form of development which is essentially reversible – in contrast to fossil fuel or nuclear power stations.
  4. Myth: Wind farms are inefficient and only work 30% of the time
    Fact: A modern wind turbine produces electricity 70-85% of the time, but it generates different outputs depending on the wind speed. Over the course of a year, it will typically generate about 30% of the theoretical maximum output. This is known as its load factor. The load factor of conventional power stations is on average 50%5 . A modern wind turbine will generate enough to meet the electricity demands of more than a thousand homes over the course of a year.
  5. Myth: Wind energy needs back-up to work
    Fact: All forms of power generation require back up and no energy technology can be relied upon 100%. The UK’s transmission system already operates with enough back-up to manage the instantaneous loss of a large power station. Variations in the output from wind farms are barely noticeable over and above the normal fluctuation in supply and demand, seen when the nation’s workforce goes home, or if lightning brings down a high-voltage transmission line. Therefore, at present there is no need for additional back-up because of wind energy.
    Even for wind power to provide 10% of our nation’s electricity needs, only a small amount of additional conventional back-up would be required, in the region of 300-500 megawatts (MW). This would add only 0.2 pence per kilowatt hour to the generation cost of wind energy and would not in any way threaten the security of our grid6. In fact, this is unlikely to become a significant issue until wind generates over 20% of total electricity supply.
  6. Myth: Installing wind farms will never shut down power stations
    Fact: The simple fact is that power plants in the UK are being shut down, either through European legislation on emissions or sheer old age. We need to act now to find replacement power sources: wind is an abundant resource, indigenous to the UK and therefore has a vital role to play in the new energy portfolio.
  7. Myth: Wind power is expensive
    Fact: The cost of generating electricity from wind has fallen dramatically over the past few years. Between 1990 and 2002, world wind energy capacity doubled every three years and with every doubling prices fell by 15%7. Wind energy is competitive with new coal and new nuclear capacity, even before any environmental costs of fossil fuel and nuclear generation8 are taken into account. The average cost of generating electricity from onshore wind is now around 3-4p per kilowatt hour, competitive with new coal (2.5-4.5p) and cheaper than new nuclear (4-7p)9. As gas prices increase and wind power costs fall – both of which are very likely – wind becomes even more competitive, so much so that some time after 2010 wind should challenge gas as the lowest cost power source.
    Furthermore, the wind is a free and widely available fuel source, therefore once the wind farm is in place, there are no fuel or waste related costs.
  8. Myth: The UK should invest in other renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency instead of wind power
    Fact: Wind energy’s role in combating climate change is not a matter of either/or. The UK will need a mix of new and existing renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency measures, and as quickly as possible. Significant amounts of investment have been allocated for wave and tidal energy development, and these technologies, along with solar and biomass energy, will have an important role in the UK’s future energy mix. However, wind energy is the most cost effective renewable energy technology available to generate clean electricity and help combat climate change right now. Furthermore, developing a strong wind industry will facilitate other renewable technologies which have not reached commercialisation yet, accumulating valuable experience in dealing with issues such as grid connection, supply chain and finance.
  9. Myth: Wind farms should all be put out at sea
    Fact: We will need a mix of both onshore and offshore wind energy to meet the UK’s challenging targets on climate change. At present, onshore wind is more economical than development offshore. However, more offshore wind farms are now under construction, with the first of the large-scale projects operational at the end of 2003, and prices will fall as the industry gains more experience. Furthermore, offshore wind farms take longer to develop, as the sea is inherently a more hostile environment. To expect offshore to be the only form of wind generation allowed would therefore be to condemn us to missing our renewable energy targets and commitment to tackle climate change.
  10. Myth: Wind farms are ugly and unpopular
    Fact: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and whether you think a wind turbine is attractive or not will always be your personal opinion. However, studies regularly show that most people find turbines an interesting feature of the landscape10. On average 80% of the public support wind energy, less than 10% are against it, with the remainder undecided. Surveys conducted since the early 1990’s across the country near existing wind farms have consistently found that most people are in favour of wind energy , with support increasing among those living closer to the wind farms.
  11. Myth: Wind farms negatively affect tourism
    Fact: There is no evidence to suggest this. The UK’s first commercial wind farm at Delabole received 350,000 visitors in its first ten years of operation, while 10,000 visitors a year come to take the turbine tour at the EcoTech Centre in Swaffham, Norfolk. A MORI poll in Scotland showed that 80% of tourists would be interested in visiting a wind farm. Wind farm developers are often asked to provide visitor centres, viewing platforms and rights of way to their sites.
  12. Myth: Wind farms harm property prices
    Fact: There is currently no evidence in the UK showing that wind farms impact house prices. However, there is evidence following a comprehensive study by the Scottish Executive that those living nearest to wind farms are their strongest advocates12.
  13. Myth: Wind farms kill birds
    Fact: The RSPB stated in its 2004 information leaflet Wind farms and birds13, that “in the UK, we have not so far witnessed any major adverse effects on birds associated with wind farms“. Wind farms are always subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment and BWEA members follow the industry’s Best Practice Guidelines and work closely with organisations such as English Nature and the RSPB to ensure that wind farm design and layout does not interfere with sensitive species or wildlife designated sites. Moreover, a recent report published in the journal Nature confirmed that the greatest threat to bird populations in the UK is climate change14.
  14. Myth: Wind farms are dangerous to humans
    Fact: Wind energy is a benign technology with no associated emissions, harmful pollutants or waste products. In over 25 years and with more than 68,000 machines installed around the world15, no member of the public has ever been harmed by the normal operation of wind turbines. In response to recent unscientific accusations that wind turbines emit infrasound and cause associated health problems, Dr Geoff Leventhall, Consultant in Noise Vibration and Acoustics and author of the Defra Report on Low Frequency Noise and its Effects16, says: “I can state quite categorically that there is no significant infrasound from current designs of wind turbines. To say that there is an infrasound problem is one of the hares which objectors to wind farms like to run. There will not be any effects from infrasound from the turbines.”
  15. Myth: Wind farms are noisy
    Fact: The evolution of wind farm technology over the past decade has rendered mechanical noise from turbines almost undetectable with the main sound being the aerodynamic swoosh of the blades passing the tower. There are strict guidelines on wind turbines and noise emissions to ensure the protection of residential amenity. These are contained in the scientifically informed ETSU Working Group guidelines 199617 and must be followed by wind farm developers, as referenced in national planning policy for renewables18. The best advice for any doubter is to go and hear for yourself!

:}

THERE ARE JUST SOOOO MANY MYTHS – STELLA STELLA ok so there really only is a lot of talk sigh…

 http://www.wind.appstate.edu/windpower/myths.php

Dispelling Common Myths

about Wind Power

Compiled by the Wind Working Group

Myth #1: Wind turbines are unusually harmful to birds.

Although birds do infrequently collide with turbines, wind energy poses less of a threat to birds than many other commonplace structures. In fact, the National Audubon Society has stated that it supports the development and use of wind power. Based on numerous studies that have taken place in  New York, Oregon, Vermont, Colorado, Wyoming, Minnesota, and California, collision with turbines result in 1-2 bird deaths or less per turbine per year. For comparison, each year at least 60 million birds die in collisions with vehicles; at least 98 million in collisions with buildings and windows; and at least 4 million in collisions with communication towers. Important consideration should be given to placement of wind turbines to ensure that turbines are not located along migratory bird flight paths or the flight paths of threatened or rare species.
Consider the alternatives; bird deaths that result from fossil energy based power production:

  • Tall smokestacks- A study at a single Florida coal fired power plant with four smokestacks recorded an estimated 3,000 bird kills in a single night during a fall migration.
  • Oil spills at sea – In a single oil shipping accident, – the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska’s Prince William Sound – more than 500,000 migratory birds perished, or about 1,000 times the estimated annual total in California’s wind power plants.
  • Additional threats to birds from other energy sources include: mercury emissions from coal fired power plants; global climate change resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels; acid rain resulting from coal fired power plant emissions of SO2 and NOx and; destruction of habitat as a result of mining activities associated with the coal, gas, oil and uranium industries.

Myth #2: Wind turbines are noisy.

Today’s large wind turbines make less noise (about 45 decibels-dB) than the background noise you hear in your own home (50 dB)! According to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), today an operating wind farm at a distance of about 750 to 1,000 feet is no noisier than a kitchen refrigerator or a moderately quiet room.

Myth #3: Many wind turbines are necessary for minimal power generation.

Improved technology has enabled far fewer turbines to produce more electricity. The standard output of a turbine grew from .5 mW in 1995 to 1.5 mW in 2003.

Myth #4: Wind turbines are unattractive

In North Carolina, a study to determine public attitudes towards wind energy was recently conducted. The study found that 77.1% of participants who had seen first hand a utility scale turbine said that they liked its appearance. Studies from numerous US states and other countries report that a majority of people think wind turbines are graceful, elegant structures. Many people find turbines to be interesting features in the landscape, enhancing the vista overall. In the UK, the British Wind Energy Association notes that wind farms are popular tourist attractions, with thousands of people each year flocking to visit attractions.

Myth #5: Conventional power sources are less unsightly and environmentally harmful than wind turbines.

Wind turbines cause little damage to the surrounding environments beyond the footprint of the facility and transmissions system and are much less unsightly than conventional power sources.

For comparison, consider the following:

  • Conventional power sources require acres and acres of land for unsightly power plants that spew pollutants from smokestacks. In addition to the electric generating facility itself, the plants also require on-site fuel storage facilities and access to cooling water, both of which require additional land.
  • Construction of hydropower dams floods riverside lands, permanently eliminating riparian and upland habitat.
  • Most generating facilities also produce solid waste by-products of combustion that can be toxic. Solid wastes from power plants are typically dumped into a landfill, another way in which a generating facility impacts land as it extends its environmental footprint beyond the boundaries of the power plant site.
  • Mountain top removal strip mining – the process of blasting off entire mountaintops in order to extract thin seams of coal – can strip up to 10 square miles and dump hundreds of millions of waste into as many as 12 valley fills that can be 1,000 feet wide and 1 mile long.
  • Conventional power sources rely on the combustion of fossil fuels which are largely responsible for the 78% decrease in visibility from natural levels that has occurred in the southern Appalachian Mountains. In the Great Smokey Mountains National Park, summertime visibility averages only 16 miles, and on many days air pollution reduces the visibility range to less than 5 miles. In this case, one might prefer to see a few turbines on top of a mountain than not be able to see the mountains at all.

Myth #6: Wind power will destroy mountain vistas.

Placement of wind turbines should be restricted so as to not detract from places of important scenic beauty. Potential areas that should be excluded from turbine placement consideration are:

  • National Parks
  • State Parks
  • National Forest lands
  • View shed buffers along the Appalachian Trail
  • View shed buffer zones along the Blue Ridge Parkway
  • Spruce-Fir Forest lands ( one of the most unique and endangered ecosystems in the Appalachian region)

Wind turbines should be located where there are:

  • Existing communication towers
  • Existing transmission lines
  • Other forms of existing structures

Myth #7: Wind power will decrease property values in surrounding areas.

Views of wind turbines will not negatively impact property values. A recent study on the economic impacts of wind power states that, “based on a nation-wide survey conducted of tax assessors in other areas with wind power projects, we found no evidence supporting the claim that views of wind farms decrease property values.” Other studies, conducted in both the US and abroad, have made similar findings.

Myth #8: Wind Energy will negatively affect tourism.

Large turbines have been found more often to be a positive influence on tourism. The British Wind Energy Association notes that wind farms in the UK are popular tourist attractions, with thousands of people each year flocking to visit them. In Australia, the wind farms are highlighted as one of the attractions for visitors amongst other historical and scenic points of interest. A Scottish study found that nine out of ten tourists visiting some of Scotland’s top beauty spots say the presence of wind farms makes no difference to the enjoyment of their holiday, and twice as many people would return to an area because of the presence of a wind farm than would stay away. Yet another survey of more than 300 visitors to Argyll, Scotland found that 91% of visitors said the presence of wind farms in the area made no difference to whether they would return.

Myth #9: North Carolinians don’t support wind power.

North Carolinians are in favor of developing wind power in our state. A recent study on public attitudes towards wind power in Western North Carolina found that Western North Carolinians are favorably disposed toward the development of a wind energy industry in the Appalachian Mountains. They want more of their future electricity derived from renewable sources and less from fossil fuels. The study also found that, by over 2 to 1, western North Carolinians do not believe that ridge top turbines should be prohibited. 3 out of 4 study participants feel that if a ridge top already has existing cell towers, they would not mind adding a wind turbine to the clutter. An even higher ratio believes a person should be allowed to erect a turbine on his/her own property for residential use.

References and Contact Info

This fact sheet was prepared by the North Carolina Wind Energy Working Group, February 2003. For more information contact: Amber Lynn Munger (828) 216 2362 or Michael Shore (828) 254 7359


1“Facts about Wind Energy and Birds,” American Wind Energy Association. http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/WEandBirds.pdf
2 “Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A summary of existing studies and comparisons to other sources of avian collision mortality in the United States.” National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC) Research Document, 2001. http://www.nationalwind.org/pubs/avian_collisions.pdf
3 “Facts about Wind Energy and Birds,” American Wind Energy Association. http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/WEandBirds.pdf
4 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Wind Power Market Update, Feb 2003 at http://www.eere.energy.gov/windpoweringamerica/pdfs/wpa/wpa_update.pdf
5 Grady, D., “Public Attitudes Toward Wind Energy in Western North Carolina: A Systematic Survey.” 2002.
16 From powerscorecard.org: http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_detail.cfm?issue_id=7
7 “Blueprint for Breathing Easier; Southeast Strategy for Clean Air,” Environmental Defense, 2002. http://www.cleanenergy.org/air/breathingeasier.pdf
8 Grover, S. for EcoNorthwest, “Economic Impacts of Wind Power in Kittitas County.” Portland, OR, 2002.
9 View this study at: http://www.bwea.com/pdf/mori_briefing.pdf
10 Grady, D., “Public Attitudes Toward Wind Energy in Western North Carolina: A Systematic Survey.” 2002.

:}:} 

A Refridgerator That Uses No Electricity And No Greenhouse Gases – How cool would it be to own something patented by Einstein?

This recent article in the UK Guardian caught my attention. While I don’t post the whoooooooole thinggggggg because it really long, I include some other sites and some art.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/sep/21/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange

Einstein fridge design can help global cooling

Scientists relaunch a 1930 invention that uses no electricity and would reduce greenhouse gases

An early invention by Albert Einstein has been rebuilt by scientists at Oxford University who are trying to develop an environmentally friendly refrigerator that runs without electricity.

Modern fridges are notoriously damaging to the environment. They work by compressing and expanding man-made greenhouse gases called freons – far more damaging that carbon dioxide – and are being manufactured in increasing numbers. Sales of fridges around the world are rising as demand increases in developing countries.

Now Malcolm McCulloch, an electrical engineer at Oxford who works on green technologies, is leading a three-year projectto develop more robust appliances that can be used in places without electricity. 

His team has completed a prototype of a type of fridge patented in 1930 by Einstein and his colleague, the Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard. It had no moving parts and used only pressurised gases to keep things cold. The design was partly used in the first domestic refrigerators, but the technology was abandoned when more efficient compressors became popular in the 1950s. That meant a switch to using freons.

Einstein and Szilard’s idea avoids the need for freons. It uses ammonia, butane and water and takes advantage of the fact that liquids boil at lower temperatures when the air pressure around them is lower. ‘If you go to the top of Mount Everest, water boils at a much lower temperature than it does when you’re at sea level and that’s because the pressure is much lower up there,’ said McCulloch.

At one side is the evaporator, a flask that contains butane. ‘If you introduce a new vapour above the butane, the liquid boiling temperature decreases and, as it boils off, it takes energy from the surroundings to do so,’ says McCulloch. ‘That’s what makes it cold.’

Pressurised gas fridges based around Einstein’s design were replaced by freon-compressor fridges partly because Einstein and Szilard’s design was not very efficient. But McCulloch thinks that by tweaking the design and replacing the types of gases used it will be possible to quadruple the efficiency. He also wants to take the idea further. The only energy input needed into the fridge is to heat a pump, and McCulloch has been working on powering this with solar energy.

‘No moving parts is a real benefit because it can carry on going without maintenance. This could have real applications in rural areas,’ he said.

McCulloch’s is not the only technology to improve the environmental credentials of fridges. Engineers working at a Cambridge-based start-up company, Camfridge, are using magnetic fields to cool things. ‘Our fridge works, from a conceptual point of view, in a similar way [to gas compressor fridges] but instead of using a gas we use a magnetic field and a special metal alloy,’ said managing director Neil Wilson

 http://www.overstock.com/Books-Movies-Music-Games/Einsteins-Refrigerator/401711/product.html?cid=123620&fp=F&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=2823969

einstein.jpg 

Einstein’s Refrigerator

And Other Stories from the Flip Side of History

by Silverman, Steve

  • $9.95
  • $9.45
  • $0.50 (5%)
  • Paperback
  • 04/01/2001
  • 9780740714191
  • 2823969

:}

But think of the irony here, Einstein went from being a patent clerk to being a patent clerk. Or better yet he went from a patent clerk to being patented:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator

 200px-einstein_refrigerator.png

From 1926 until 1933 Einstein and Szilárd collaborated on ways to improve home refrigeration technology. The two were motivated by contemporary newspaper reports of a Berlin family who had been killed when a seal in their refrigerator broke and leaked toxic fumes into their home. Einstein and Szilard proposed that a device without moving parts would eliminate the potential for seal failure, and explored practical applications for different refrigeration cycles. Einstein used the experience he had gained during his years at the Swiss Patent Office to apply for valid patents for their inventions in several countries, the two eventually being granted 45 patents in their names for three different models.

It has been suggested that most of the actual inventing was performed by Szilard, with Einstein merely acting as a consultant and helping with the patent-related paperwork. Additionally, Einstein’s name lent the research prestige and credibility.[1]

The refrigerator was not immediately put into commercial production, the most promising of their patents being quickly bought up by the Swedish company AB Electrolux to protect its refrigeration technology from competition. A few demonstration units were constructed from other patents.

The invention of Freon in 1930 rendered the vapour compression process the standard for refrigeration.

:}

Then there is view of the regular fridge:

http://nga.gov.au/Exhibition/Sculptureprize05/Detail.cfm?IRN=139757

german-art.jpg 

:}