3 feet in 50 years?!?

Radey Shouman considered Fri, 23 Dec 2016
09:52:21 -0500 the perfect time to write:

John B. writes:

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 19:45:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/22/2016 6:26 PM, wrote:

The latest windmills are HUGE with the idea being that it is easier
for birds of prey to avoid them. This remains to be seen since the
ground beneath the others were literred with bird carcases and the
noise of the windmills kept ground scavengers away. Cattle didn't
like grazing beneath them.

I've never understood the complaints about noise. On one trip out west,
we came upon a large wind turnine standing just 50 feet or so off the
minor highway we were driving. I pulled over and walked quite close to
it, just outside its protective fence. I heard only a very slight sound
of gears operating.

The noise is very dependently on propeller RPM. The smaller wind
generators that are fitted to yachts are quite noisy. Or at least
noisy enough they the users complain about it :-)

Some people do complain that the low frequency noise from large wind
turbines bothers them. Low frequencies do carry much further than high.

I don't know what causes some to complain and others not, but I'm not
self-confident enough to discount all complaints after walking near one
turbine.

They are certainly quieter than the high-pitched turbine whine which
comes from almost all steam or gas turbine generators.
And most animals get used to the noise - the earliest "large" (now
regarded as small) wind turbine in Cambridgeshire was at an animal
rescue centre, which built it to reduce their power costs. It
exceeded projections, and paid for itself in under 18 months, and has
actually been generating income for them ever since (as they get paid
much more for the surplus they feed into the grid than they have to
pay for power when the wind is so slow that it's output is too low for
their needs).
Unsurprisingly, many of the rescue animals are more nervous than
normal, yet the paddocks for grazing animals are right next to it. The
animals don't seem in the least concerned.
I would expect later designs to be quieter, as blade design has
improved a lot, and later ones have less turbulence (which is where a
lot of the noise comes from)

Phil Lee writes:

Frank Krygowski considered Thu, 22 Dec 2016
16:15:16 -0500 the perfect time to write:

On 12/22/2016 3:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 12/22/2016 10:54 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 10:29:46 AM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:


But CO2 is not tobacco, there are no CO2 non-smokers, unless they live
deep in the jungle and shoot all strangers with poison arrows. The sad
fact is that CO2 regulations are probably good for Exxon's business,
trying to cut CO2 has led to an *increase* in natural gas use, for
peaking power plants, at the expense of coal, which is used for base
load. Coal is still needed, of course, to make steel for all those huge
offshore wind turbines. It's quite likely that they have led to a net
increase in total CO2 emmissions.

Very doubtful, at least in the U.S.

If you want to restrict your measurement to one country it's easy to
reduce CO2 -- Germany has no doubt reduced its emissions for electric
generation, but by putting a lot of the burden of power peaking on its
neighbors. But I thought it was *global* warming we were worried about.


First, the steel used for wind
turbines is a tiny portion of total steel production. Second, the
steel industry in the U.S. is mostly using mini-mills with electric
furnaces to re-melt scrap. Less than a third of U.S. made steel comes
from ore, and that industry uses only a tiny portion of the U.S. coal
production. Of course, like anything else electric, those electric
furnaces are ultimately powered more and more by natural gas.

Sure, much of the production of steel from ore has been offshored to
China, but it still requires large quantities of coal. Once again, the
*global* effect is what's alleged to be important.

You're right that the global total is what matters.

But to prove your contention that wind turbines are a net harm because
of their steel content, you'd have to look at the amount of steel
consumed by turbine construction every year. It's obviously a tiny
portion of the world's steel consumption. You'd also want to track the
method used to produce that steel, since different methods (scrap remelt
vs. ore) would put vastly different amounts of CO2 into the air. And
you'd have to compare those emissions with the CO2 savings over the life
of the turbine.

My guess is that the amount of steel used is quite small, that a lot of
it is made by relatively clean methods, and that the CO2 savings easily
outweigh the costs. But I'm willing to look at numbers, if you have any.

You also have to look at the carbon production of keeping the
generation system in each case fed with fuel, and the steel used for
building ships, railway tracks, and other fuel handling equipment all
the way from it's source.
Of course, for most renewables, that's nil - the wind brings itself to
the turbine, the water to the hydro-electric plant, and the tides and
waves to their respective generators. No transport required.
The cost of laying a cable to bring the power out is the same in both
cases, so that can be pretty much ignored. But even gas needs a
pipeline, and the steel and carbon cost of building that is
significant.

It's true that transport of fuel isn't free, but how about the cost of
mowing all the weeds in the solar fields? I wonder how they do that.
If it's too dry to grow weeds then cleaning the facilities is an ongoing
expense. Maintenance of wind or solar fields demands quite a bit of
fossil fueled transport, consider how those turbines are installed --
they don't last forever, and they can't run long without maintenance.

I'm completely in favor of renewable energy, but it has to compete on a
realistic basis, and it has to pay a penalty for uncertain availability.

I'll believe in a renewable energy economy when I see renewable
infrastructure built with it.

as well as Universities around the world. The pro-DDT writings (yes,
I'm changing pollutants) cited by Andre were done by a professor at my
alma matter while he was a professor (along with other notable
antics). EPA regulations, some of which implicate the global warming
"hoax" (e.g. the methane regulation) are the products of endless
public input, typically from industry-hired scientists and
environmental groups. There are legions of qualified scientists who
are capable of determining what is or is not a hoax.

To get way back to the original question, who determines who the
"qualified scientists" are? At some point, if we're going to have any
approximation to a democracy, the public have to have enough
understanding to make some guess as to who is trustworthy and who is
not.

the problem is, the vast majority of "the public" will always be
incapable of telling which scientists are trustworthy and which are
not. Most will not even try.

I guess that's an argument against democracy, then?

Yep, as it's currently implemented here. Alternately, it can be looked
on as an argument against ignorance. Unfortunately, I don't see a way
to measurably improve either one.

Well, a genuinely proportional representation system would be a start.
For all it's faults, the European Parliament (elected using PR) is far
more responsive to well argued concerns of the electorate than most
others I know of - because they know that every vote counts.

I guess you didn't vote Brexit, then.

--

On 12/23/2016 10:21 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 12/23/2016 7:20 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 09:52:21 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 19:45:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/22/2016 6:26 PM, wrote:

The latest windmills are HUGE with the idea being that it is easier
for birds of prey to avoid them. This remains to be seen since the
ground beneath the others were literred with bird carcases and the
noise of the windmills kept ground scavengers away. Cattle didn't
like grazing beneath them.

I've never understood the complaints about noise. On one trip out west,
we came upon a large wind turnine standing just 50 feet or so off the
minor highway we were driving. I pulled over and walked quite close to
it, just outside its protective fence. I heard only a very slight sound
of gears operating.

The noise is very dependently on propeller RPM. The smaller wind
generators that are fitted to yachts are quite noisy. Or at least
noisy enough they the users complain about it :-)

Some people do complain that the low frequency noise from large wind
turbines bothers them. Low frequencies do carry much further than high.

I don't know what causes some to complain and others not, but I'm not
self-confident enough to discount all complaints after walking near one
turbine.

I wonder whether it is what appears to be the modern propensity to
whine about things that taints these sort of discussions. I remember
when "wind mills" were common on farms as a means of pumping water.
Never heard a peep about "that awful noise".

Even more pervasive: Highway noise. Depending on wind direction, the
constant rush and roar of a well-traveled freeway can be heard for at
least half a mile.

That amounts to well over 30,000 square miles that are never close to
quiet. Yet pleas to remove or prevent freeways are rather rare.

People do complain, though, especially when trees are cut and freeways
widened. The usual response is to put up noise-blocking walls.

Yes, I know that some people do complain. I'm on the board of
commissioners for a nature preserve that has a freeway immediately
adjacent. The noise is horrendous, and probably made worse because the
freeway is at a higher elevation than most of the preserve. But getting
noise walls has proven difficult so far. The criteria seem designed to
approve them only for densely populated areas. IOW, the countryside
(the sort of place one would put wind turbines) is expected to accept
the noise, even though it's FAR worse than any wind turbine I've checked.

Back when there were more freeways being built they were bitterly
complained about by some who were turfed off their land to make room,
particularly when the government frugally condemned just the strip down
the middle they actually needed.

Yes, it's quite natural for people to complain about that. I've had a
friend who lost a house, and another who lost a farm to freeway
right-of-way.


In this group I see complaints regularly about drivers "rat-running"
through their neighborhoods, you being one of the complainers. That's a
case of the infrastructure remaining the same, but more of the public
deciding to take advantage. Just depends on whether it's your ox being
gored, I guess.

Of course. We could start a long list of things people complain about.
I suspect wind turbine noise would be near the bottom, though.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski considered Thu, 22 Dec 2016
19:46:37 -0500 the perfect time to write:

On 12/22/2016 5:33 PM, wrote:
Windmills and solar cells require more power to construct, install and maintain then they generate in their useable lifespans. This makes them a gross power loss.


Amazing. Um... got data?

As one data point, the photovoltaic cells on my roof have saved us
more in power bills than their total cost, including installation.
As another, look up-thread to the wind turbine at a nearby animal
rescue shelter, which paid for itself in 18 months and has been
showing a net profit ever since.
So as usual, it looks as if cyclintom's arguments are like the Isle of
Wight Ferry, which is brown and comes steaming out of Cowes backwards!

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 12/23/2016 9:52 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
John B. writes:

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 19:45:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/22/2016 6:26 PM, wrote:

The latest windmills are HUGE with the idea being that it is easier
for birds of prey to avoid them. This remains to be seen since the
ground beneath the others were literred with bird carcases and the
noise of the windmills kept ground scavengers away. Cattle didn't
like grazing beneath them.

I've never understood the complaints about noise. On one trip out west,
we came upon a large wind turnine standing just 50 feet or so off the
minor highway we were driving. I pulled over and walked quite close to
it, just outside its protective fence. I heard only a very slight sound
of gears operating.

The noise is very dependently on propeller RPM. The smaller wind
generators that are fitted to yachts are quite noisy. Or at least
noisy enough they the users complain about it :-)

Some people do complain that the low frequency noise from large wind
turbines bothers them. Low frequencies do carry much further than high.

I don't know what causes some to complain and others not, but I'm not
self-confident enough to discount all complaints after walking near one
turbine.

sigh OK, more detail. First, the wind turbine I described was the
one I was closest to. I've driven through fields of other wind
turbines (i.e. Altamont Pass, for example) and biked within maybe half
a mile of others. I've walked within a block of another somewhat
smaller (but still large) one in a major city. While not as close to
those others, I don't recall hearing any noise from any of them. I
gave the example of being extremely close, so close that I could hear
some gear whine.

I'm not necessarily discounting ALL noise complaints, as you claim.
But I thought that if there were some particularly noisy ones, someone
might explain that to me from their own experience.

So, have you heard some? What did they sound like?

I haven't heard any objectionable noise from one, no. But I haven't been
near very many, and I certainly haven't tried to sleep next to one.

BTW, I'm familiar with objections to wind turbines on other
grounds. The most common one seems to be visual - as in "Those will
ruin the scenery when I take my yacht out to sea!" Amazingly, James
Lovelock (environmentalist author of _The Gaia Hypothesis_) objects to
wind turbines because he thinks they ruin the view from his farm in
the country.

Always a mistake to short hypocrisy.

--

John B. writes:

On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 09:52:21 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 19:45:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/22/2016 6:26 PM, wrote:

The latest windmills are HUGE with the idea being that it is easier
for birds of prey to avoid them. This remains to be seen since the
ground beneath the others were literred with bird carcases and the
noise of the windmills kept ground scavengers away. Cattle didn't
like grazing beneath them.

I've never understood the complaints about noise. On one trip out west,
we came upon a large wind turnine standing just 50 feet or so off the
minor highway we were driving. I pulled over and walked quite close to
it, just outside its protective fence. I heard only a very slight sound
of gears operating.

The noise is very dependently on propeller RPM. The smaller wind
generators that are fitted to yachts are quite noisy. Or at least
noisy enough they the users complain about it :-)

Some people do complain that the low frequency noise from large wind
turbines bothers them. Low frequencies do carry much further than high.

I don't know what causes some to complain and others not, but I'm not
self-confident enough to discount all complaints after walking near one
turbine.

I wonder whether it is what appears to be the modern propensity to
whine about things that taints these sort of discussions. I remember
when "wind mills" were common on farms as a means of pumping water.
Never heard a peep about "that awful noise".

People back in the day did bear a lot more in exchange for promised
prosperity. Nowadays, at least in the US, they have learned that
screaming loud enough will get the annoying stuff built somewhere
else. Sometimes there's somewhere poor enough to be elsewhere,
sometimes not.



--

On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:59:54 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 12/23/2016 6:20 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 09:52:21 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 19:45:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/22/2016 6:26 PM, wrote:

The latest windmills are HUGE with the idea being that it is easier
for birds of prey to avoid them. This remains to be seen since the
ground beneath the others were literred with bird carcases and the
noise of the windmills kept ground scavengers away. Cattle didn't
like grazing beneath them.

I've never understood the complaints about noise. On one trip out west,
we came upon a large wind turnine standing just 50 feet or so off the
minor highway we were driving. I pulled over and walked quite close to
it, just outside its protective fence. I heard only a very slight sound
of gears operating.

The noise is very dependently on propeller RPM. The smaller wind
generators that are fitted to yachts are quite noisy. Or at least
noisy enough they the users complain about it :-)

Some people do complain that the low frequency noise from large wind
turbines bothers them. Low frequencies do carry much further than high.

I don't know what causes some to complain and others not, but I'm not
self-confident enough to discount all complaints after walking near one
turbine.

I wonder whether it is what appears to be the modern propensity to
whine about things that taints these sort of discussions. I remember
when "wind mills" were common on farms as a means of pumping water.
Never heard a peep about "that awful noise".


The rotor speed, size, gearing and resonance of the
materials has changed so comparisons to a farm water pump
windmill from 70 years ago may not be reasonable.

That said, I am absolutely amazed that people who bought
houses off-price because they are in an airport flight path
can later sue for noise. But hey I'm not an attorney.

Well someone bought a cup of hot coffee and sued the vendor because it
was too hot.
(and collected :-)

One is inclined to speculate about a suite against an auto
manufacturer because a Chevy ran over my dog.

Or perhaps a suite against a lawyer because he lost my case :-()
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 02:09:42 +0000, Phil Lee
wrote:

Radey Shouman considered Thu, 22 Dec 2016
15:39:15 -0500 the perfect time to write:

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 12/22/2016 10:54 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 10:29:46 AM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:


But CO2 is not tobacco, there are no CO2 non-smokers, unless they live
deep in the jungle and shoot all strangers with poison arrows. The sad
fact is that CO2 regulations are probably good for Exxon's business,
trying to cut CO2 has led to an *increase* in natural gas use, for
peaking power plants, at the expense of coal, which is used for base
load. Coal is still needed, of course, to make steel for all those huge
offshore wind turbines. It's quite likely that they have led to a net
increase in total CO2 emmissions.

Very doubtful, at least in the U.S.

If you want to restrict your measurement to one country it's easy to
reduce CO2 -- Germany has no doubt reduced its emissions for electric
generation, but by putting a lot of the burden of power peaking on its
neighbors. But I thought it was *global* warming we were worried about.

The UK now uses very little coal - much has been replaced with carbon
neutral woodchip fuel for the same generating stations, and wind and
solar are still growing fast. We haven't even really started on the
carbon neutral source with the greatest and most predictable capacity
of all - tidal power - although several experiments are underway to
find the most efficient way of using it without damaging the very
environment we are trying to protect. All that stands in the way are
the puppets of the fossil fuel industry, who will be brought down in
time, when their funding runs out, and they lose the ability to buy
governments and "news" programming (like faux news and the Murderoch
rags)

From what I have read what stands in the way is the relationship
between costs and production of power. Tidal projects have been
studied extensively and implemented in relatively few instances.
Approximately 17 installations world wide.

Of course, as the price of fossil fuel rises the advantages of tidal
power will increase. On the other hand, in the U.S., 70% of crude oil
production is used by the transportation industry, including
automobiles... I can hardly wait until the oil companies go broke :-)

--
cheers,

John B.

Phil Lee writes:

Radey Shouman considered Thu, 22 Dec 2016
17:05:11 -0500 the perfect time to write:

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 12/22/2016 3:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 12/22/2016 10:54 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 10:29:46 AM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:


But CO2 is not tobacco, there are no CO2 non-smokers, unless they live
deep in the jungle and shoot all strangers with poison arrows. The sad
fact is that CO2 regulations are probably good for Exxon's business,
trying to cut CO2 has led to an *increase* in natural gas use, for
peaking power plants, at the expense of coal, which is used for base
load. Coal is still needed, of course, to make steel for all those huge
offshore wind turbines. It's quite likely that they have led to a net
increase in total CO2 emmissions.

Very doubtful, at least in the U.S.

If you want to restrict your measurement to one country it's easy to
reduce CO2 -- Germany has no doubt reduced its emissions for electric
generation, but by putting a lot of the burden of power peaking on its
neighbors. But I thought it was *global* warming we were worried about.


First, the steel used for wind
turbines is a tiny portion of total steel production. Second, the
steel industry in the U.S. is mostly using mini-mills with electric
furnaces to re-melt scrap. Less than a third of U.S. made steel comes
from ore, and that industry uses only a tiny portion of the U.S. coal
production. Of course, like anything else electric, those electric
furnaces are ultimately powered more and more by natural gas.

Sure, much of the production of steel from ore has been offshored to
China, but it still requires large quantities of coal. Once again, the
*global* effect is what's alleged to be important.

You're right that the global total is what matters.

But to prove your contention that wind turbines are a net harm because
of their steel content, you'd have to look at the amount of steel
consumed by turbine construction every year. It's obviously a tiny
portion of the world's steel consumption. You'd also want to track
the method used to produce that steel, since different methods (scrap
remelt vs. ore) would put vastly different amounts of CO2 into the
air. And you'd have to compare those emissions with the CO2 savings
over the life of the turbine.

My guess is that the amount of steel used is quite small, that a lot
of it is made by relatively clean methods, and that the CO2 savings
easily outweigh the costs. But I'm willing to look at numbers, if you
have any.

From what I've read the EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) of
wind power is pretty good. But fossil fuels are still required to
produce the infrastructure. Steel without coal is only possible if all
steel is recycled, in other words, total steel use declines over time.

That's not unreasonable - look at all the vehicles fuelled by the
infernal combustion engine which will be available for recycling once
we stop pumping the fuel out of the ground!. Then there's all the
steel that is being replaced by plastic composites, never mind all
that which could be reclaimed from the huge infrastructure we have
built to cater to the private car.

Wait, private cars are going away? Does all of the climate action
cohort know this? I wonder what would happen to support on climate
action if that were widely noised.

Life without fossil fuels and current technology would certainly be
possible if people are willing to give enough of the industrial life style
up. I've grown accustomed to the industrial lifestyle, as have an awful
lot of people.

Heck, how much steel is in a typical wellhead pump?

Not a huge amount, but it has to be multiplied by enough pumps to serve
a large demand. If an individual pump and it's power does not pay
energetically for the oil it produces, then eventually the real economy
goes broke running it, regardless of any artificial subsidies it might
accrue.

On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 03:06:57 +0000, Phil Lee
wrote:

Radey Shouman considered Thu, 22 Dec 2016
17:05:11 -0500 the perfect time to write:

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 12/22/2016 3:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 12/22/2016 10:54 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 10:29:46 AM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:


But CO2 is not tobacco, there are no CO2 non-smokers, unless they live
deep in the jungle and shoot all strangers with poison arrows. The sad
fact is that CO2 regulations are probably good for Exxon's business,
trying to cut CO2 has led to an *increase* in natural gas use, for
peaking power plants, at the expense of coal, which is used for base
load. Coal is still needed, of course, to make steel for all those huge
offshore wind turbines. It's quite likely that they have led to a net
increase in total CO2 emmissions.

Very doubtful, at least in the U.S.

If you want to restrict your measurement to one country it's easy to
reduce CO2 -- Germany has no doubt reduced its emissions for electric
generation, but by putting a lot of the burden of power peaking on its
neighbors. But I thought it was *global* warming we were worried about.


First, the steel used for wind
turbines is a tiny portion of total steel production. Second, the
steel industry in the U.S. is mostly using mini-mills with electric
furnaces to re-melt scrap. Less than a third of U.S. made steel comes
from ore, and that industry uses only a tiny portion of the U.S. coal
production. Of course, like anything else electric, those electric
furnaces are ultimately powered more and more by natural gas.

Sure, much of the production of steel from ore has been offshored to
China, but it still requires large quantities of coal. Once again, the
*global* effect is what's alleged to be important.

You're right that the global total is what matters.

But to prove your contention that wind turbines are a net harm because
of their steel content, you'd have to look at the amount of steel
consumed by turbine construction every year. It's obviously a tiny
portion of the world's steel consumption. You'd also want to track
the method used to produce that steel, since different methods (scrap
remelt vs. ore) would put vastly different amounts of CO2 into the
air. And you'd have to compare those emissions with the CO2 savings
over the life of the turbine.

My guess is that the amount of steel used is quite small, that a lot
of it is made by relatively clean methods, and that the CO2 savings
easily outweigh the costs. But I'm willing to look at numbers, if you
have any.

From what I've read the EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) of
wind power is pretty good. But fossil fuels are still required to
produce the infrastructure. Steel without coal is only possible if all
steel is recycled, in other words, total steel use declines over time.

That's not unreasonable - look at all the vehicles fuelled by the
infernal combustion engine which will be available for recycling once
we stop pumping the fuel out of the ground!. Then there's all the
steel that is being replaced by plastic composites, never mind all

Out of curiosity, where does this composite stuff come from? Epoxy
resin is a derivative of crude oil and carbon fiber is made from
propene which is largely made from crude oil.

.... just as soon as we can shut down these lousy oil companies...

that which could be reclaimed from the huge infrastructure we have
built to cater to the private car.

About 5.6% of the EU workforce is employed in the automotive industry
and 7.7 % of the manufacturing industry.

In addition, on a larger basis over 5 percent of the world's total
manufacturing employment is engaged in the production of automobiles
and/or parts. It is estimated that each direct auto job supports at
least another 5 indirect jobs in the community, resulting in more than
50 million jobs owed to the auto.

I suspect that much of the savings generated by the elimination of the
private auto will be required to feed the masses of unemployed that
result from it.

Heck, how much steel is in a typical wellhead pump?

Not a great deal. But disregarding the steel all well pumps require an
external power source :-)
--
cheers,

John B.