# Renewable Energy Hits a Wall.



## cornbread (Jul 4, 2005)

Renewable Energy Hits the Wall
By Norman Rogers
Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...#ixzz5wuSlO3yF

If the official definitions of renewable energy were logical, renewable energy would be defined as energy that does not emit CO2 and that is not using a resource in danger of running out anytime soon. But the definitions written into the laws of many states are not logical. Hydroelectric energy is mostly banned because the environmental movement hates dams.

Nuclear is banned because a hysterical fear of nuclear energy was created by environmental groups. Both nuclear and hydro don't emit CO2. Hydro doesn't need fuel. Nuclear fuel is cheap and plentiful. A large number of prominent global warming activists, such as James Hansen, Michael Shellenberger, and Stewart Brand have declared that nuclear is the only solution for the crisis that they imagine is approaching.

For those of us who don't take global warming seriously, there is nothing wrong with using coal and natural gas to generate electricity. The CO2 emitted helps plants to grow better with less water, a great help to agriculture.

In approximately thirty states that mandate renewable energy, the only scalable forms of renewable energy allowed are wind and solar. California mandates that 60% of its electricity come from renewable energy by 2030. Nevada mandates 50% by 2030. There are other types of official renewable energy, but they can't be easily scaled up. Examples are geothermal energy, wave energy, and garbage dump methane.

Wind and solar are erratic sources of energy. The output depends on the weather. Solar doesn't work at night. Because they are erratic, there have to be backup plants, generally natural gas plants, that balance the erratic flow of electricity from wind or solar. The backup plants increase output when renewable energy output declines and vice versa. Because both wind and solar are subjected to periods of near zero output, the backup system has to be able to carry the entire load of the electric grid without the wind or solar. 

Neither wind nor solar can replace conventional plants. If you hear that a utility is replacing fossil fuel plants with wind or solar, that can't happen. The most that can happen is that the fossil fuel plants will use less fuel when the wind or solar is generating electricity. 

For a natural gas plant, the gas to generate a megawatt-hour of electricity costs about $20. That $20 is the economic value of each megawatt-hour generated by wind or solar. Unsubsidized, wind or solar electricity, either one, costs about $80 a megawatt-hour to generate. The difference between $80 and $20 is the subsidy that has to be paid in order to use wind or solar.

As long as the percentage of electricity that comes from wind or solar is small, the grid can handle the erratic nature of that electricity. But if the penetration becomes large, severe problems start to emerge. Solar power is strongest in the middle of the day and weakens toward the end of the day. But the late afternoon and early evening, when solar is dying, are when power usage peaks in many locations. The graph below shows how the sun's strength varied in Las Vegas for July 2018.

The output of wind farms varies rapidly. The graph below is for the Texas wind system, with thousands of wind turbines. In one hour, the output can change by more than 3,000 megawatts.

The problem with increasing the penetration of wind or solar to 50% or 60% of electricity generation is that there will be periods when there is too much electricity from wind or solar. In that case, the grid operator will order that the wind or solar power be curtailed. If you cut the output of a wind or solar plant, the power not generated is lost forever.

Further, curtailing the renewable energy works against meeting the mandate of 50% or 60% renewable energy. For various technical reasons, it is increasingly difficult to utilize erratic renewable energy as the penetration increases. Backup fossil fuel plants have trouble rapidly changing their output. The geographical distribution of sources of generation impacts the capability of the transmission network. The network has to have spinning reserve capability so that the sudden failure of a plant doesn't create a blackout.

In Nevada, the Gemini project is in the approval process. It is a 700-megawatt (nameplate) solar plant with an associated battery system that can store 1,400 megawatt-hours of electricity, allowing electricity to be moved from midday, when there may be too much solar electricity, to the late afternoon, early evening, when it is needed. The problem is that batteries are very costly for moving electricity. 

A megawatt-hour of solar electricity that costs, unsubsidized, $80 during the day ends up costing $270 when moved to the early evening via a battery, based on costs from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The $270 includes the cost of replacing the battery every five years. The batteries have to be air-conditioned; otherwise, they will wear out even faster than in five years. If the day is cloudy, there will be no solar energy, and the battery can't be charged. Backup plants will take care of supplying electricity on cloudy days. Use of batteries with wind is more difficult because there are long periods with too much or not enough electricity.

The renewable energy industry is asking its friends in Congress to extend subsidies for another five years and to add new subsidies for energy storage (batteries). Producing CO2-free electricity for $270 a megawatt-hour that needs a duplicate set of backup plants makes no sense because nuclear could supply CO2-free electricity for $80 without needing backup plants. Battery electricity demands large subsidies.

Another side-effect of increasing the penetration of wind and solar is that backup natural gas generating plants generate only half as much electricity if the penetration of renewables is increased to 50%. The cost of electricity from a natural gas plant mainly consists of the capital cost of the plant spread over the megawatt-hours generated during the life of the plant and the cost of the fuel to generate each megawatt-hour. Typical combined cycle natural gas plants operate at a capacity factor of about 50%. 

That means they generate 50% of what they could generate if they ran at full power 100% all the time. At 50%, the cost of the electricity is about half capital cost and half fuel cost. If the capacity factor is cut in half, the capital cost doubles, increasing the cost of the electricity from underutilized plants. Roughly, the cost of gas electricity will increase from $50 to $70 per megawatt-hour if renewable penetration increases to 50%.

Wind and solar are basically a waste of money. The subsidies can be justified only as a payment for reducing CO2 emissions. But wind and solar are expensive devices for reducing emissions. It cost about $140 in subsidies per metric ton of CO2 emissions avoided. Using nuclear or buying carbon offsets is a much cheaper solution.

Norman Rogers writes often about energy. He has a website: Nevada Solar Scam. He is the author of the book Dumb Energy: A Critique of Wind and Solar Energy.


*This guy DGI. The incredible expense of renewable energy is a feature, not a defect. The goal is to get energy so expensive that the Lesser Classes will just naturally move into high-rise apts and take public transportation to work. Oh yes, no red meat. Too energy intensive.*

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...#ixzz5wuSlO3yF


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

"Nuclear is banned because a hysterical fear of nuclear energy was created by environmental groups."

Yep, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are fantasies made up by environmental groups. :sigh: 

Dams didn't damage the environment and change the course of rivers or endanger migrating fish. Yep. Not a biased article at all. Just ask the people displaced by the Yangtze River project.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

No accreditation, no credible sources, nothing but the GOP platform.
(GOP, Gas, Oil, Plutonium) 
This is the long held stance and propaganda from big centralized energy producers.
It keeps the money rolling into their banks and out of yours.

Wind power just came even with natural gas in cost, while released natural gas is 4 times as bad a greenhouse gas as CO2. (Just when you thought CO2 is bad enough).
CO2 makes plants grow, humans aren't plants. It took the planet more than 3.5 billion years to sequester carbon so humans could exist...

Source is the D.O.E, Department Of Energy for this story when took about 2 seconds to find on a search...
https://arstechnica.com/science/201...now-lower-than-the-cost-of-natural-gas/?amp=1

More than one country has produce more than 100% of energy needs from renewables, with the Dutch doing 45% in less than 15 years...
Denmark has actually sold it's north sea oil rights, which cleaned up it's harbors, and retrained the workforce to build wind generators. Currently, they have the most efficient designs and are on track to make 100% of their electricity in the next 5 years.

The argument against environmental groups against hydro electric dams has been moderated, the truth is there are too many people for hydroelectric to supply everyone, and we have simply run out of spots on rivers to dam up that make efficient sense.

Nuclear waste is such an issue that a TRILLION taxpayer dollars went into TRYING to build a waste storage facility for the waste we already have.
Nuclear energy privatized profits, but socialized waste disposal costs across taxpayers. 
The Department Of Energy is spending taxpayer dollars *Trying* to keep nuclear waste (water, rods, fuel pellets, scrap from plants) out of the water table, food, air, and all at taxpayer expense.
Let's not forget what happens when some group like the NAZIs, KKK, ISIS, etc gets ahold of nuclear materials...

Posting propaganda as an 'Op-Ed' doesn't make it true.
With American oil companies receiving about $3 Billion in 'Grants', paying virtually no taxes of any kind, and robbing the American people of royalties on off shore and government (Citizen) owned lands, 
And then turning around and spending about $3 Billion dollars on misinformation, disinformation, lies and general propaganda, it's the American taxpayer footing the bill for these bad ideas circulating...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeepHammer said:


> Currently, they have the most efficient designs and are on track to make 100% of their electricity in the next 5 years.


They will be fine as long as the wind blows.

They still have to maintain conventionally fueled plants for times when they can't use the wind turbines. That's all explained in the OP article.

Their population is like one of our states.



JeepHammer said:


> Posting propaganda as an 'Op-Ed' doesn't make it true.


Neither does substituting your own.

https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/pros-and-cons-of-wind-energy.php


> *Cons of Wind Energy*
> *1. Wind Reliability*
> Wind doesn’t generally blow reliably, and turbines usually function at about 30% capacity or so. In the event that the weather is not going to support you, you may wind up without power (or at any rate you’ll need to depend on the electric company to take care of you during those times). Serious storms or high winds may cause harm to your wind turbine, particularly when they are struck by lightning.
> 
> ...


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

We live in the fantasy of our choosing, and fight to the death to preserve it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> We live in the fantasy of our choosing, and fight to the death to preserve it.


That reminds me of someone.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

Great article and spot on !


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They will be fine as long as the wind blows.
> 
> They still have to maintain conventionally fueled plants for times when they can't use the wind turbines. That's all explained in the OP article.
> 
> Their population is like one of our states.


 I can’t think of any reason for that to be true .
Can you Provide a link or some other credible proof of your assertion?
And please this time don’t create a strawman so you can knock him down .


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> I can’t think of any reason for that to be true .
> *Can you Provide a link* or some other credible proof of your assertion?


One has already been provided.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

No it hasn’t I specifically asked about one paragraph that you posted 
Something that I believe to be your opinion. something you certainly cannot prove to be true


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

Danaus29 said:


> "Nuclear is banned because a hysterical fear of nuclear energy was created by environmental groups."
> 
> Yep, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are fantasies made up by environmental groups. :sigh:
> 
> Dams didn't damage the environment and change the course of rivers or endanger migrating fish. Yep. Not a biased article at all. Just ask the people displaced by the Yangtze River project.


Please note that there was exactly no damage to environment nor human health caused by the three Mile Island incident , and that the Chernobyl event was a stupid mistake made by incompetent engineers. BTW- wild life is now flourishing at the Chernobyl site just a few decades later. Nuclear energy remains THE safest, cleanest way to produce power. No contest.

Yes, dams flood habitat but replace it with other aquatic habitat. Reservoirs are not sterile. For the displaced humans, would you be happier if we drained a few lakes to provide them with new, dry homes?

Why are Treehugger arguments always so short sighted?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

doc- said:


> Why are Treehugger arguments always so short sighted?


They typically just repeat some buzzwords without thinking things through.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

JeepHammer said:


> Wind power just came even with natural gas in cost, while released natural gas is 4 times as bad a greenhouse gas as CO2. (Just when you thought CO2 is bad enough).
> CO2 makes plants grow, humans aren't plants. It took the planet more than 3.5 billion years to sequester carbon so humans could exist...
> 
> 
> ...


NG is 97% methane, which is somewhere between 20 and 85 x (depending on your ref source) "more powerful" as a ghg gas than co2, but you don't release the methane into the air. You BURN it, turning it into co2 & h20.

The rising co2 levels we've seen over the past several decades are coincidently accompanied by increasing ag yield and increasing photosynthesis (as viewed by satellite sensing) across the planet's natural areas..The "greening of the planet." Many attribute this to the rising co2--"air fertilization."....Ultimately, almost all life on Earth depends on photosynthesis. It's easy to correctly conclude that more co2 in the air means more life on Earth.

The rest of your post makes as little sense as the part quoted above. That's why these discussion of energy & co2/environment are so fruitless: it's difficult to reason with unreasonable people. Fantasy is not fact.

Here's the facts on the economics of wind power: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/20/paying-much-more-for-much-less/

Summary: no govt subsidies, no wind power.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Fukushima, Japan is leaking more radiation than Chernobyl and that radiation is making it to the US west coast.
Fukushima has leaked more radiation than Chernobyl and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future since there isn't even a plan to stop it.

--------

The information we get in this country will never tell us what the rest of the world is doing due to the disinformation campaign by big energy.
While the rest of the world is using g renewables for main power, and filling in high use shortages with fossil fuels, which makes much more sense than ignoring renewables entirely.

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/portugal-renewable-energy-record-in-march/

While big centralized energy uses coal, oil, gas, nuclear, they attack having to use water, wind, sun etc. There is no one answer, but the less fossil fuels we use, the better off humans are.
It doesn't take a lot of time to do, countries that invest in the engineering do it in 20-25 years.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark

-------------------

Then consider national security...
Decentralized power production as a national security issue.
Shutting down the entire power grid, or large portions of it, like entire east coast, is just a few mouse clicks away since grid companies refused to harden the power grid against cyber attack.

A decentralized power grid, rooftop solar, scattered wind farms etc keep this from happening if attacked.
This is recommended by department of defense, and the military has an extensive renewable energy resource project going.

You can *Think* what you want to, this is America.
When you read something like the Original Post, consider why it doesn't have resources, foot notes, reliable sources of information noted.
Where does the idea come from, and what is the motivation for the article?

-----------

I'm not a plant, particularly a broad leaf plant that a rise in CO2 will help most (like weeds).
What the climate change deniers fail to mention is a reduction in fresh water, more deserts, higher temps, etc.
While they *Claim* this will help plants, humans aren't plants, and deserts support a lot less humans and/or animal life forms.

While deforestation increases, rain forests dry up and die, these people *Believe* the Earth is 'Greening'...


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They typically just repeat some buzzwords without thinking things through.


Are you looking in a mirror


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

doc- said:


> NG is 97% methane, which is somewhere between 20 and 85 x (depending on your ref source) "more powerful" as a ghg gas than co2, but you don't release the methane into the air. You BURN it, turning it into co2 & h20.
> 
> The rising co2 levels we've seen over the past several decades are coincidently accompanied by increasing ag yield and increasing photosynthesis (as viewed by satellite sensing) across the planet's natural areas..The "greening of the planet." Many attribute this to the rising co2--"air fertilization."....Ultimately, almost all life on Earth depends on photosynthesis. It's easy to correctly conclude that more co2 in the air means more life on Earth.
> 
> ...


Leaking methane (Natural Gas) is a huge issue.
https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/natural-gas-industry-has-methane-problem

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...m-tied-to-methane-spike-in-earths-atmosphere/

https://www.americangeosciences.org/geoscience-currents/methane-emissions-oil-and-gas-industry


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

doc- said:


> the Chernobyl event was a stupid mistake made by incompetent engineers.
> 
> Yes, dams flood habitat but replace it with other aquatic habitat. Reservoirs are not sterile. For the displaced humans, would you be happier if we drained a few lakes to provide them with new, dry homes?
> 
> Why are Treehugger arguments always so short sighted?


But there are always stupid engineers. Actually I suspect it’s more the engineers supervisors that it was the engineers them selves. 

As for habitat loss behind a damn the aquatic habitat behind a damn is very nearly sterile in comparison to other aquatic habitat or one that was there


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They typically just repeat some buzzwords without thinking things through.


Kind of like you did when you said that fuel power plants have to be maintained for when the wind doesn’t blow .


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

JeepHammer said:


> Fukushima has leaked more radiation than Chernobyl and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future since there isn't even a plan to stop it.
> 
> --------
> 
> ...


There's no plan to stop it because there's so little and it's quickly diluted that it poses no problems. How many people have died in California due to radiation exposure from Fukishima (or in Fukishima, for that matter-- Had you actually researched the data, you'd know that the only casualties occurring from that incident were caused by the chaotic evacuation ordered by the govt officials-- an evacuation that it turns out didn't have to be ordered.)

Better off without fossil fuel? Let's see: forests of English Isles and mainland Europe almost wiped out by humans until coal became a viable alternative fuel source to wood. Forests now have made a come back there. Fossil fuels powered the Industrial Revolution, allowing better standard of living throughout the world. Fossil fuels power out transportation, allowing many benefits to living conditions, jobs availability, access to food, medical care etc etc. Do I really have to explain all this?...Oh, yea. I guess I do because having made that statement, you obviously couldn't figure it out for yourself. You only know what your liberal professors told you to think.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

JeepHammer said:


> Fukushima, Japan is leaking more radiation than Chernobyl and that radiation is making it to the US west coast.
> Fukushima has leaked more radiation than Chernobyl and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future since there isn't even a plan to stop it.
> 
> --------
> ...


China has a bigger solar energy capacity than any other country in the world, at a gargantuan 130 gigawatts.
Home to some of the world’s largest solar power plants, the United States is the second-largest

*1. China*
Cumulative installed wind power capacity: 145,362 megawatts

Percentage share of total wind power capacity of the world: 33.6%

*2. The United States of America*
Cumulative installed wind power capacity: 74,471 megawatts

Percentage share of total wind power capacity of the world: 17.2%

*3. Germany*
Cumulative installed wind power capacity: 44,947 megawatts

Percentage share of total wind power capacity of the world: 10.4%


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Kind of like you did when you said that fuel power plants have to be maintained for when the wind doesn’t blow .


That's still factual.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Kind of like you did when you said that fuel power plants have to be maintained for when the wind doesn’t blow .


the difference is, those plants do have to be maintained. Estimates are that without back-up plants, wind and solar plants would have to be built to potentially provide 10x the boiler plate output rating. The US uses ~4000 TWs of electricity each year. That means we would have to have generating potential of 40,000 TW to reliably supply power from wind & solar. Right now we have 4TW installed. ...Think we can do it without back up?

The problem with needing back up is that while we're saving all that co2 by using wind/solar, those back up generators have to keep spinning at idle, producing almost as much co2 at idle as they do when generating power. Pretty stupid.

Yu guys gotta really think this thing out better....and we haven't even got into the destruction natural habitat those installations would cause.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's still factual.


No it’s not you’re going to have to prove that one or again you’re not going to be creditable.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

doc- said:


> the difference is, those plants do have to be maintained. Estimates are that without back-up plants, wind and solar plants would have to be built to potentially provide 10x the boiler plate output rating. The US uses ~4000 TWs of electricity each year. That means we would have to have generating potential of 40,000 TW to reliably supply power from wind & solar. Right now we have 4TW installed. ...Think we can do it without back up?
> 
> The problem with needing back up is that while we're saving all that co2 by using wind/solar, those back up generators have to keep spinning at idle, producing almost as much co2 at idle as they do when generating power. Pretty stupid.
> 
> Yu guys gotta really think this thing out better.


 Good grief you set up a strawman and beat the heck out of him.
Your logic is locked into conventional fossil fuel thinking. 
There is no reason that wind generation back up needs to be fossil fuel.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> No it’s not you’re going to have to prove that one or again you’re not going to be creditable.


It's already been proven.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Good grief you set up a strawman and beat the heck out of him.
> Your logic is locked into conventional fossil fuel thinking.
> There is no reason that wind generation back up needs to be fossil fuel.


Had you done your homework, you'd know that solar & wind installations have only proven to produce only 10-30% of the power they are rated for (see my reference sited earlier) and that decreases with age, so, over-all, you need to install 10x more generating power than the actual usage demand. QED. We won't get into the additional costs & inconveniences of building a grid smart enough to compensate for rapid and unusual output changes inherent in such unreliable generating systems.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's already been proven.


It shouldn’t be any problem at all to provide a link


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

doc- said:


> Had you done your homework, you'd know that solar & wind installations have only proven to produce only 10-30% of the power they are rated for (see my reference sited earlier) and that decreases with age, so, over-all, you need to install 10x more generating power than the actual usage demand. QED. We won't get into the additional costs & inconveniences of building a grid smart enough to compensate for rapid and unusual output changes inherent in such unreliable generating systems.


 Such a poor old strawman that you’re beating to death. 

Is there any chance that you might address the question?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> It shouldn’t be any problem at all to provide a link


There seems to be only one person that does not understand the fallacy of your argument.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> It shouldn’t be any problem at all to provide a link


One was already provided.
We had this conversation before too.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Just to be clear in a make it really easy for you.....



AmericanStand said:


> There is no reason that wind generation back up needs to be fossil fuel.


 Can you provide any support for your position that wind generation back up needs to be fossil fuel?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> One was already provided.
> We had this conversation before too.


No one was not


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> There seems to be only one person that does not understand the fallacy of your argument.


Feel free to explain it to me


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

It seems like you fossil fuel support are building a strawman that says renewable resources have to have a back up that is fossil fuel powered and creates as much pollution while on standby as it would be if It just went ahead and ran anyway.

Or am I misunderstanding your point?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Can you provide any support for your position that wind generation back up *needs to be fossil fuel*?


Can you show where I said that?
I don't believe I did.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> No it’s not you’re going to have to prove that one or again you’re *not going to be creditable*.


That's ok.
I'm not trying to win a popularity contest.
I'm just talking about the facts of power generation.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Can you show where I said that?
> I don't believe I did.


Correct you seldom have an original thought that you post here ,you simply agree with others and post links. 
For instance Based on other posts that you were agreeing with I said”Kind of like you did when you said that fuel power plants have to be maintained for when the wind doesn’t blow .”
Then you said 


Bearfootfarm said:


> That's still factual.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

And you see that’s not factual wind generation plants do not have to be backed up by fossil fuel plants.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Feel free to explain it to me


I can't decide if you argue the absurd because you like to be a contrarian and argue for the sport of it, or if you really believe your argument.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

For those avid wind and solar supporters, try setting your own home up on a wind solar system adequate to supply all of your year round day / night electrical needs. Get off the grid and quit burning all of that nasty fossil fuel electricity.

Even with the big tax write off you will get and the "green credits" you can sell, I think you will find out quickly that it is way more costly that coal, gas, nuke power off the grid. You will also find that there will be times when your wind and solar systems simply won't provide adequate power for you to run your home on.

Unless the entire country could go back to some type of minimalist lifestyle, wind and solar aren't going to cut it and they aren't economically practical. Some of us like to run an air conditioner, turn on the lights, watch TV or be on the computer after dark, do a little welding in the shop, etc.

I've done the math and gotten quotes on systems. It would take a $70,000 solar system to provide equal to all of my electrical needs for the house and outbuildings, and I'd still be relying on my local power company for electricity after dark, just offsetting it with electric I sold back to the grid during the day when my system was peaking.

Our current elect bill is about $250 per month, $3,000 annually. It only makes sense if you have no other alternative.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Sticking to facts I stead of right angle tangents...

Local power produced is used locally.
While something like solar electric has lower front end production efficiency, since it doesn't have a heating process in the front end like coal, natural gas, oil or nuclear, there isn't the 65% losses up front in BTU heat.
65% of energy produced by coal is lost as excess/waste heat.

Consider the big energy grid is using what's 'Cheapest' to cover the miles of cables, not what's most efficient.
Cost of losses are passed along to consumers.

Then you consider line losses, switching & transformer losses, corrosion & conductor losses, coronal losses, resistance losses in the conductors...
These are laws of thermodynamics and electrical resistance laws, and can not be changed.

Often up to 80% of grid power is lost...
While locally produced, much lower voltage renewable power has a much better track record since it's not conducted 500 to 1,500 miles away.
Higher voltages aren't needed because the line losses aren't nearly as much, which also reduces resistance losses.
The higher the voltage, the more losses, all else being equal.

The arguments come from an education problem.
The current grid is 100+ years old, it's trillions of dollars of profit for big energy, and big energy wants to 'Conserve' it's profits, the reason for propaganda.

Decentralized production is now possible, the technology is currently available & cost effective.
It will break up the monopoly of big centralized energy companies,
From a national defense standpoint it will make the country easier to defend,
From a pollution standpoint it will seriously reduce the pollution,
From a supply standpoint, you won't have nearly as many outages,
From a user standpoint, the cost won't change, and service won't change.

----------

Personal experience with solar electric is positive in a big way.
While I based my system on a 20 year pay back, with grid power increases it paid off in 9 years.

The lies posted above about solar panels are just that, lies.
I have panels that are 20 years old and output is STILL the rated production when new.
I have inverters that are 20 years old and still producing at new rating efficiency.
Efficiency has increased in the past 20 years simply because of better components & research, so newer inverters are even more efficient.

I am in the process of changing batteries (storage) with new lithium technology units and the losses have reduced to less than 1/5 of lead acid batteries. (That's an instant 80% increase in efficiency due to charge density alone, consider in life span and the new batteries are 500% more efficient)
When life span and charge density are included, the price is somewhat reduced over lead acid while initial cost is still high (all battery purchases are costly).

Being 'Conservative' means no changes, and the big energy companies rake in billions in profits, so they don't want changes.
The oil companies rake in trillions, so they don't want changes.
I don't care to give money away to the monopoly, like paying a loan shark interest and never being able to reduce the principal... I didn't care to be paying for the rest of my life.

Do what you want, it's your choice...
I choose to 'Farm' the free sunlight for my benefit.
Just like using a tractor to plant crops, I had to buy the solar panels, inverters, batteries, but I haven't paid an electric bill in 20 years, the upgrades to the system are a fraction of what I would have paid the big grid electric company.
Sunlight is a 'Crop' for me, it's 'Production' instead of Produce, but it pays me.

Wind is exactly the same situation if you have the resource.
It's simply 'Farming' an existing resource that's non- polluting.
Being a 'Farmer', pollution is a big issue, no 'Farmer' wants to toxify his living.
Only short sighted people build the outhouse next to the water well... The less toxic substances you use/release, the better off you are in the long run...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Correct you seldom have an original thought that you post here ,you simply agree with others and post links.


That's not an answer to the question I asked.



AmericanStand said:


> And you see that’s not factual wind generation plants do not have to be backed up by fossil fuel plants.


The facts presented so far refute your claim.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Fishindude said:


> For those avid wind and solar supporters, try setting your own home up on a wind solar system adequate to supply all of your year round day / night electrical needs. Get off the grid and quit burning all of that nasty fossil fuel electricity.
> 
> Even with the big tax write off you will get and the "green credits" you can sell, I think you will find out quickly that it is way more costly that coal, gas, nuke power off the grid. You will also find that there will be times when your wind and solar systems simply won't provide adequate power for you to run your home on.
> 
> ...


OK, that's exactly what I did with technology 20+ years ago.
I didn't buy into the wasteful, disposable "Consumer Economy" and built earth sheltered & off grid.

I haven't paid an electric company, water company or sewage treatment bill in 20+ years.
My system can be reproduced for about $28,000 including drilling a water well.
Production has gone up while prices have come down.
And I didn't get 'Free Money' from anywhere since I didn't have a professional installer set everything up... And if I can do it (a disabled Marine) then anyone can do it with a little research, and consider I did that research pre-internet, 20+ years ago.

The entire place is just like any common home, 220 vac/110 vac supply, common light switches, lights, outlets.
The appliances are common, just like everyone else has, the only thing we paid attention to was energy efficiency.
If we use more power, we simply expand the solar system to accommodate, but we haven't had to do that for several years since producers started making electrical appliances more energy efficient.
We simply reduced the waste/losses instead of doing without.
Example: A 3 watt LED bulb replaces a 60 watt bulb, same light, 57 Watts saved and the lifespan off the bulbs is often 10 years or more...

The home itself was different.
Instead of a shaky, poorly made & insulated 'McMansion' we went earth sheltered.
Mother Earth is wonderful insulation, and poured concrete is much more practical.
Fire, bugs, floods, tornados/hurricanes won't carry it off.
Since it stays at mean earth temp, which is where humans are comfortable, heating/cooling expense is VERY low, mostly ventilation & some dehumidification in the summer.

Of course, you don't have something sticking up to wave in the face of your neighbors.
You also don't have to listen to them rattle your house when you are earth sheltered...
When I mow the roof, the wife can't hear the mower.

If you want to 'Conserve' the way things are done, completely ignoring 100+ years of advances in technology, that's your *Choice*.
Just don't try to sell it as 'Fact' or some kind of home game.
It's easy to be a 'Conservative', you don't have to keep up on education or change anything.
There are no conservatives on Mt. Rushmore, no 'Conservatives' signed the Declaration Of Independence or Constitution Of The United States, no technology advances made by 'Conservatives'...

It's easy to see why big energy wants to 'Conserve' the status quo, billions in profits plucked from your pockets... Much like a loan shark wants you to keep paying 'Interest' without reducing the principal.
I simply choose to NOT pay the monopolies, and it paid for itself in 9 years, and that means my system has been paying me for 11+ years.
I have spent some of those savings on upgrades, but it's just a fraction of what I've NOT sent off to never do me a bit of good in the future.

------------

Now that we have covered what I do for the home...
And considering you serve the home, the home does not serve you,
Let's cover my machine & welding shop, my primary source of income.

The ONLY time we use fossil fuels in the shop is when I need to run 3 phase powered machines.
I fire up a propane welder/generator, run it for however long the 3 phase machines need to run.
Since it makes all kinds of excess power, I charge batteries, pump water, dry cloths in electric dryer, etc.
No sense in wasting the propane & wear on equipment, and with a little planning instead of 'Stand By' & wasteful usage we rub a couple brain cells together in advance.
Being lazy cost money, how lazy do you want to be?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Fishindude said:


> For those avid wind and solar supporters, try setting your own home up on a wind solar system adequate to supply all of your year round day / night electrical needs. Get off the grid and quit burning all of that nasty fossil fuel electricity.
> 
> Even with the big tax write off you will get and the "green credits" you can sell, I think you will find out quickly that it is way more costly that coal, gas, nuke power off the grid. You will also find that there will be times when your wind and solar systems simply won't provide adequate power for you to run your home on.
> 
> ...


But what would it cost you if you had to set up the entire structure like you do with wind and solar?
Buy a generator? set up a system to create fuel? a road system to get fuel to the generater ect?
The economy of scale has a lot to do with why you pluginto the electric company.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not an answer to the question I asked.
> 
> 
> The facts presented so far refute your claim.


 what facts? a fluff opinion piece and then more people agreeing with it does not make a fact.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> what facts?


I answered that already.



AmericanStand said:


> more people agreeing with it does not make a fact.


You're correct.
Facts aren't dependent on people agreeing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)




----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JeepHammer said:


> OK, that's exactly what I did with technology 20+ years ago.
> I didn't buy into the wasteful, disposable "Consumer Economy" and built earth sheltered & off grid.
> 
> I haven't paid an electric company, water company or sewage treatment bill in 20+ years.
> ...


That is truly impressive. Good job.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

JeepHammer said:


> OK, that's exactly what I did with technology 20+ years ago.
> I didn't buy into the wasteful, disposable "Consumer Economy" and built earth sheltered & off grid.
> 
> I haven't paid an electric company, water company or sewage treatment bill in 20+ years.



we have some like that in my neighborhood, we call them deadbeats.....

sorry I just couldnt resist.

truth is I agree withyou.
being stuck with old thinking or putting cash up fron seems to be what holds people back


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> what facts? a fluff opinion piece and then more people agreeing with it does not make a fact.


Believe what you want.

Those of us with actual education and experience in renewables have seen savings, have the system up & running, probably for decades without further costs, and no pollution know the difference.

I overbuilt, I have redundant backups so I don't have power outages. I can't run a business when I don't know from minute to minute if that business will have power...

There is no way anyone can *Help* anyone that hasn't tried, done the research, doesn't understand the process.
The 'Education' from "alt.right university" or big energy propaganda isn't anything you can use for anything productive...


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

People forget that most didnt have electric at all until after WWII. Folks thats less than 100 years ago. Humans didnt spring into existance 100 years ago. I lived ten years without electric, its NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL. Mostly cause though electric company lines went close to my house at time, they said it would require a special step down transformer as there were no close houses, and quoted some ginormous price, more than I had paid for the 40A. Back then had little propane refrigerator (from old rv) and kerosene lamps. It wasnt bad, mostly missed having an electric fan. Today I would do solar for an efficient refrigerator and LED lights. Dont need all that other stuff. Or if occasional use of electric tool, then a generator.

People talking like they actually NEED all this stuff or they will immediately die is humorous. Maybe if you have some medical device that runs on electric? But otherwise, its all in your head and what the corporations have conditioned you to expect. Course most modern housing not made for taking advantage of prevailing breeze or high ceilings to help keep room cooler.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


>


Yes he is s nice speaker and he makes some good points but he eventually leaps into unfounded assumptions and then outright lies.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Yes he is s nice speaker and he makes some good points but he eventually leaps into *unfounded assumptions and then outright lies*.


So you say.
I've seen nothing to make me believe that.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

JeepHammer said:


> Believe what you want.
> 
> Those of us with actual education and experience in renewables have seen savings, have the system up & running, probably for decades without further costs, and no pollution know the difference.
> 
> ...


Um I think you have me on the wrong side
Im a firm beliver in what renewables and forward thinking can do.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you say.
> I've seen nothing to make me believe that.


Im not the least bit surprized. people tend to see what they want to.
The key to his debate goes back to what I said. Fossile fuel proponets set the strawman argument that Renewables need Fossil backup.
not so, it simply isnt true


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

My electric company stores its excess energy (not particularly solar or wind) in pumped storage.

if ir works for fossil fuel is there a reason it wouldnt work for renewables?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Here is a video on that.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> My electric company stores its excess energy (not particularly solar or wind) in pumped storage.
> 
> if ir works for fossil fuel is there a reason it wouldnt work for renewables?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity


They can also do this with in-ground heating tubes. Extra heat is pumped down into the ground under homes and recovered back when needed.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> There seems to be only one person that does not understand the fallacy of your argument.


oR IT COULD BE THAT SO MANY BELIVE IN MY POINTS THAT iTS SEEMS POINTLESS TO TRY TO EDUCATE THOSE THAT DONT WANT TO SEE THE SIMPLE TRUTH?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Here is a community in Canada that stores excess solar for use in the winter.

https://www.dlsc.ca/


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Here is another different way of storing excess energy. Compressed Air.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/arti...air-storage-for-the-australian-grid#gs.xc6zx1


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

This whole discussion could be moot. With new battery tech like Tesla you wont need as many solar panels as before. Maybe not even any on your house. You can buy the batteries without the solar and let the off peak grid charge them while you are asleep. 

And none of this makes a hill of beans unless we talk about conservation. @JeepHammer's works precisely because of the conservation aspect. Otherwise we are trying to fill a sieve with more water. Enough people can fill it up but it doesn't take long to empty again.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> It shouldn’t be any problem at all to provide a link


You're fighting way above your weight class.

These can get you started on the way to improving your knowledge base:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01...or-green-and-they-provide-zero-global-energy/

https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2017/09/how-to-run-modern-society-on-solar-and-wind-powe.html

From the 2nd ref: _"In the case of a grid with 80% renewables, the generation capacity needs to be six times larger than the peak load, while the excess electricity would be equal to 60% of the EU's current annual electricity consumption. Lastly, in a grid with 100% renewable power production, the generation capacity would need to be ten times larger than the peak load, and excess electricity would surpass the EU annual electricity consumption._ [21] [22] [23] "


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

IF you are starting from the beginning, buying land, building a house, installing all the systems, then in many instances you can have an energy efficient, renewable energy powered home. Be it solar, wind, hydro, geothermal. BUT not everyone has that option. In my case the house is in a heavily wooded neighborhood with other houses close by and not much of a sunny yard. If I tore down the house I could replace it with an earth sheltered building _if local zoning ordinances would allow that_. Then there is still the problem with the surrounding trees and north facing slope with no access to rapidly running water and no place to put a wind turbine.

Hydro-electric dams cause environmental disruption. Removal of hydro-electric dams causes environmental disruption. Either way it messes with the environment. The Yangtze river project was a very recent one and countless farmers were removed from productive agricultural land. Some were given exchange property but many of those properties were unproductive and hillside properties. The farmers who were able to produce their own food and food to sell at the market were left without an income or the means to grow their own food. National Geographic conducted several interviews with the displaced property owners while the project was being built. 

I didn't find any information about people who were displaced by the flooding created by Hoover dam. Also there were no environmental impact studies conducted before it's construction. It needs repair and maintenance as anything does. And it did change the climate of not only the area upstream, but downstream as well. It was a major change for many miles in each direction.

Three Mile Island changed the way nuclear reactors are operated. It still produced radioactive waste that had to be removed and relocated. The reactor involved has been permanently shut down. 

I won't go into the problems with coal, oil and natural gas. Those have been beaten to death and beyond.

Every form of energy production has it's benefits and drawbacks. And there is no "one size fits all" solution to the growing need for electricity production. 

Everyone wants access to electricity. It has been one of the greatest conveniences developed in the last 100 years. But we also want our children and grandchildren to have a safe place to live. There is only one Earth and it needs to be cared for, not raped willy-nilly by every pocket lining developer or politician. If that makes me a "tree-hugger" then I am happy to bear the label. I won't be around 50 or 100 years from now, neither will most of you. Many of us here have children or grandchildren that will be here, if we don't poison them first. I want to preserve the earth for them.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

mreynolds said:


> This whole discussion could be moot. With new battery tech .... .


I like your post, but the battery thing ain't gunna happen. Existing batteries are very near the theoretical limits of energy storage. The first batteries may well be 3000 yrs old ("the Bagdad battery") Modern ones are still based on the same theory, they just have improved materials. It doesn't appear that any new, improved paradigm is on the horizon. 


Storage of electrical energy is dangerous. Note that Walmart is suing Tesla over the fires its batteries have caused in 6 or so of its stores. We've seen the episodes of smart phones bursting into flames in peoples' pockets. While petroleum storage requires some attention to safe handling, it's remarkably safe compared to batteries.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

mreynolds said:


> This whole discussion could be moot. With new battery tech like Tesla you wont need as many solar panels as before. Maybe not even any on your house. You can buy the batteries without the solar and let the off peak grid charge them while you are asleep.
> 
> And none of this makes a hill of beans unless we talk about conservation. @JeepHammer's works precisely because of the conservation aspect. Otherwise we are trying to fill a sieve with more water. Enough people can fill it up but it doesn't take long to empty again.


With earth sheltered construction of the home, 'Poor Mans' geothermal pre-heat and cool (air tubes) the differential in air temp is very little, between insulation & temp differential heating & cooling is very produced energy consumption. 
That was by design, I intended for earth temp to keep the home livable, even comfortable without outside power.

We have all the power we need, in fact, I produce excess of needs most times since the system is designed to produce 100% of needs in the winter when days are short and sun is low angle.
Since we produce what we use, we watch usage opting for high efficiency appliances.
That's MUCH easier now than it used to be!

I've got 10-15 year old CF bulbs, while people said I was 'Crazy' for spending $5-$10 for a lightbulb, they have lasted 10-15 years, and use 90% less current to operate.
With LED lights, it's 1%-3% of incandescent, so I use them, again, just life span makes up the cost difference, you don't even have to include energy savings.

I started small and expensive, but quickly realized the efficiency in scale.
Since I was a 'Young Republican', I believed all the crap/lies/propaganda from Ronald Reagan and paid pundts, so I had to do the research & experiments to prove to myself it worked.
With some SELF education in electronics & electrical theory, the experiments proved out quickly and I increased scale.

I did make some mistakes since I had to prove everything to myself and get over the old wives tales & lies, and it cost me some money to make those mistakes, but it's all on the internet now, you don't have to replicate my mistakes.
The technology is proven and available, only the paid pundts think it's not viable.

As to cost, base line connection, just the monthly minimum to be hooked up just doubled in the town closest to me, that's about $60 a month before you ever turn a light on.
We had 9 cost increases in 11 years.
My system *Should* have hit the break even point in 20 years, the warranty period on my solar panels.
Between the panels producing more electricity than the base rating (more efficient) and no breakdowns, the system paid for itself in 9 years simply due to over rated production and rate hikes, tax increases.

The other part is no power outages in 14 years or more.
My last drop out was my fault, I didn't use the proper circuit breakers for an inverter and pinched an extension cord which killed the inverter. That cost about $300 to fix the inverter and get the correct breakers in the box.
I've made mistakes... I won't sugar coat the experience, and I won't lie to make a point...

The truth is, if you aren't lazy, and can see beyond the propaganda, the solar does work, as well as wind.
The more you do, the lower the costs, and education is available for free or low cost.
It's all in what you choose to do, spend your time. Talkers will do nothing but talk, and no matter how many stand up and say renewables work better for most common applications, they are going to continue to talk simply because it's easier than learning something and/or doing something.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Kinda a closed mind there doc. When you say that improve battery technology is not going happen. 

I wish I had your ability to see the future


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

doc- said:


> You're fighting way above your weight class.
> 
> These can get you started on the way to improving your knowledge base:
> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01...or-green-and-they-provide-zero-global-energy/
> ...


 You want to send me to the kindergarten primer on energy? I don’t think you have a clue as to my weight class in the subject. 
What is this where you get your information? 
To really be up to speed on this subject you’re not only have to do a lot of research You have to do some thinking on your own.
There’s more to the subject than just repeating gyhe established power companies propaganda.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

The battery technology isn't 'New', Edison is credited with building the first metal hydride batteries.
The technology developed in this country has been suppressed for a century, as other 'Backwards' countries got ahold of the technology to produce the batteries in volume to get the cost down, it simply couldn't be supressed anymore.

The first automobiles were electric, and fossil fuel companies, later automotive builders bought up and supressed the battery technology to keep vehicles running on fossil fuels.

As for Walmart suing Tesla, it's about solar panels that weren't properly wired.
The case hinges on how panels were connected & earth grounded.
Most of the Walmart panel fires were caused by lightening strikes.

It's charge density of metal batteries.
While the metal batteries have several orders of magnitude better charge density, none of the deniers think science actually works even though they carry it around in their pockets every day.

Then there are super capacitors, which are on the way towards even more efficiency and don't have an expiration date, being solid state they will live much longer than even metal batteries.

It's about the education level, while wind & solar continue to get more productive, lower cost and longer lived, fossil fuels have peaked out and that scares the crap out of big energy.
Solar farms are going up like crazy around Indiana, big energy installing solar fields & wind generators while still telling people solar/wind doesn't work...

And to the walmart, Amazon, UPS, FedEx, and every other big company harvesting solar power from rooftops.
These are for profit companies, and they analyze every dime spent, but know solar actually does work and is less cost in the long run, so they do it to increase profits...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Obviously some of the people posting on here know what they're talking about and a few are apparently self-educated on the subject, which means they definitely know what they're talking about.
I congratulate, but don't waste your time talking to those who say things like, "wind turbines won't work when the wind stops" or "we HAVE to rely on fossil fuels".
They either don't know or don't care, take your pick.
As long as the earth is spinning and the sun is burning, there is wind. That's 3rd grade science.
Humans have been thriving long before oil refining was discovered and before we dug up coal. That's 3rd grade social studies.

The only comment that was close to being right was about fighting out of your weight class.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> The key to his debate goes back to what I said. Fossile fuel proponets set the strawman argument that Renewables *need Fossil backup*.
> not so, it simply isnt true


You've yet to show where I ever said that.
You just keep repeating yourself.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> if ir works for fossil fuel is there a reason it wouldnt work for renewables?


It only works if you have a hydroelectric plant, which goes back to what I said in the beginning. It also requires more energy than it provides, so it really doesn't "store" anything at all.



> Although the *losses of the pumping process makes the plant a net consumer of energy overall*, the system increases revenue by selling more electricity during periods of _peak demand_, when electricity prices are highest.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> As long as the earth is spinning and the sun is burning, there is wind. That's 3rd grade science.


That doesn't mean it's always blowing where the turbines happen to be, or that it's fast enough. (Or not too fast)

https://www.ventusky.com/?p=35.41;-83.39;6&l=temperature-2m


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Here is another different way of storing excess energy. Compressed Air.
> 
> https://www.greentechmedia.com/arti...air-storage-for-the-australian-grid#gs.xc6zx1


It's unproven technology, according to your source.



> *If Hydrostor can prove its technology* in Australia’s wide-open power market, it could lay the groundwork for megaprojects, on the order of hundreds of megawatts each, that the company says are already in its pipeline.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

JeepHammer said:


> With earth sheltered construction of the home, 'Poor Mans' geothermal pre-heat and cool (air tubes) the differential in air temp is very little, between insulation & temp differential heating & cooling is very produced energy consumption.
> That was by design, I intended for earth temp to keep the home livable, even comfortable without outside power.
> 
> We have all the power we need, in fact, I produce excess of needs most times since the system is designed to produce 100% of needs in the winter when days are short and sun is low angle.
> ...


Agree, preaching to the choir here. I was àn energy efficiency contractor for 25 years. I don't know much about solar or wind except maybe a little above average than most folks. 
I am
thinking about solar here at my house. At first just as a generator and then maybe add some batteries. I don't want to get too carried away as I will sell this one soon. I just want to try stuff out for my next house. 

I did watch a windmill go up because one of my friends worked on it and invited me. Those suckers had 1000 MCM cables in it so I know a lot of electricity can go through that. Of course one blade was 60 something feet long.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

doc- said:


> I like your post, but the battery thing ain't gunna happen. Existing batteries are very near the theoretical limits of energy storage. The first batteries may well be 3000 yrs old ("the Bagdad battery") Modern ones are still based on the same theory, they just have improved materials. It doesn't appear that any new, improved paradigm is on the horizon.
> 
> 
> Storage of electrical energy is dangerous. Note that Walmart is suing Tesla over the fires its batteries have caused in 6 or so of its stores. We've seen the episodes of smart phones bursting into flames in peoples' pockets. While petroleum storage requires some attention to safe handling, it's remarkably safe compared to batteries.


Yes I have heard that too but there are theoretical batteries that don't exist yet. Law of thermodynamics says everything is energy and it can't be destroyed or created. It can be transferred though. We just need to find the right medium. 

May not happen in my lifetime but there are already tests on charging batteries at night at low peak load times. There is a joint effort with Texas and California soon that will put it to the test. PUCT and the CPUC are working on it now.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've yet to show where I ever said that.
> You just keep repeating yourself.


 You sure are in love with a straw man .
I clearly showed you agreed with the statement And made it your own


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It only works if you have a hydroelectric plant, which goes back to what I said in the beginning. It also requires more energy than it provides, so it really doesn't "store" anything at all.


What kind of a silly argument is that? Anything that stores things does not release as much as it is stored in it to begin with that is the nature of storage


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It only works if you have a hydroelectric plant, which goes back to what I said in the beginning. It also requires more energy than it provides, so it really doesn't "store" anything at all.


Yes it only works if you have a hydroelectric plant which you can build wherever you want the dam thing, Yes certain features make for a more efficient site location than others and that is a key to the technology. 
But remember your big point against wind power is that the energy generated from it is not available most of the time. By pairing wind plants and solar generation with pumped storage you have access to that energy whenever you need it. 
And I know you’re going to beat on a strawman that says something like pump storage locations and wind locations are not always located close together but thanks to the miracles of modern technology power-lines , power can be transmitted long distances between copaired plants


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

The issue with coal power in particular is heat TIME.
Since coal doesn't have a 'Throttle', the plant has to be spun up to 100% production POTENTIAL all the time, which wastes even more fuel as waste heat.
A coal plant has to be ready to produce the maximum usage in the event everything gets turned on at once.
That's 100% for any given time of day, and any given day of the year.
Traditionally people don't use as much power at night as they do during work hours of the day, and less electricity is used in cities in winter than for summer air conditioning.

Natural gas and petroleum are somewhat throttled, dumping extra fuel will result in more power fairly quickly.
When coal production plants are dominant, oil or natural gas plants are sometimes available to fill in the shortages until coal pants can get spun up during very high or record usage.
The problem is that's TWO fossil fuel plants (or more) to do the job.

And let's not forget 'Brown Outs' aren't uncommon, a time when the production simply can't meet demand.
Big energy doesn't care much about brown outs since it doesn't damage THEIR equipment, but brown outs are REALLY hard on YOUR equipment as a consumer.

Now we have to talk about POTENTIAL vs actual used production.
My potential exceeds my production since I'm set up for low winter sun with short days.
In the summer, I have the potential to make much more power than I use.
I CAN fill in with a generator, I can burn a little fuel and do the heavy lifting while charging batteries...

I did this fill in with generator in the early days, but the panels got more efficient, inverters got more efficient, I got more battery storage, and eventually the system got oversized, particularly when I expanded for my business.

Part is conservation, part is simply timing.
The high load (high drain) devices are on timers, they run during normal 'Peak Sun' hours.
Things like the well pump run between 10am & 3pm.
*IF* we use an unexpected amount of water, getting the well pump to run a cycle is a button push away from the house or shop, it simply runs from batteries if the sun is down.
The potential excess becomes actual working energy when it comes from the batteries.

Keep in mind that switching to metal batteries & super caps, I have 4 times the useable storage without damaging anything. I can extract 4 times as much from the batteries and NOT damage then I could from lead acid batteries, so I have excess potential I don't normally use, and I only keep that excess as redundancy.
I like the idea there is a lot of power in reserve, ready for use.
Someone that wasn't so far out in the woods might not need or want that excess (and cost).

------------

The second type is grid intertie system.
Solar simply on rooftop, what you don't use yourself goes back on the grid, you get credit for it.
No batteries, so of the grid fails, your home power fails.

This significantly reduces costs since batteries aren't there, and it will provide most of the power a home will use in the daytime and seriously reduce your bill.
These are NEC/UL covered, your local utility might throw a fit, but they ultimately can't keep you from doing it under the law.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Lots of educated people on a variety of subjects shown in the thread. 

Bottom line is that the average person is NOT going to do anything more than walk in the door and flip the switch. The living space better be ready to meet their on demand needs. Their living in already built homes and do not have the ability and or desire to get educated or spend the money up front for a profit later. Heck their not even thinking about being in the house or apartment or using the appliances they have 5 or 10 years from now. Sure not going to try to build, buy or shop to do so. 

Efficient energy (pick a definition of your choice) is going to have to be provided large scale, on demand, economical, and ready for that switch flip whenever its desired. The question is which forms are going to need those needs.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeepHammer said:


> Leaking methane (Natural Gas) is a huge issue.


beano helps with that!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Wanna save the planet? Spay all the females at birth for the next fifty years. The planet will save itself without harming anyone.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Why the women? Why not neuter men? Works just as well.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Wanna save the planet? Spay all the females at birth for the next fifty years. The planet will save itself without harming anyone.


Not worried about 'The Planet', this ball of metal & rock has never known anything was alive on the surface and never will.

I'm worried about the next 30 years (if I'm lucky).
This is my retirement home, it's just this side of self sufficient and then it's someone elses problem.
The house, cold storage & root cellars will last long after I'm gone, just like rock & cement buildings have in the past, the home isn't 'Disposable'.
The well water will still flow, the power system is headed towards solid state, so it won't have an expiration date...
Maybe someone that can maintain it will come along and want it when we are gone.

Since about all actual experts agree we as humans are past the tipping point on environmental changes, maybe it will be comfortable shelter for another family while the biosphere goes down the toilet...

I really don't care, I'll be dead.
Until I'm dead I'll be comfortable...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> Why the women? Why not neuter men? Works just as well.


Not really. If you miss a few women then you may end up with a few kids. If you miss a few men then you'll likely be dealing with hundreds possibly thousands. Best to shut down the factories instead of the fuel supply.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeepHammer said:


> Not worried about 'The Planet', this ball of metal & rock has never known anything was alive on the surface and never will.
> 
> I'm worried about the next 30 years (if I'm lucky).
> This is my retirement home, it's just this side of self sufficient and then it's someone elses problem.
> ...


thats how I look at it too. Either way it goes down this old rock will take care of itself. I was just addressing those who think we should "do something".


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

We *Should* do something, but too many are too lazy.
Too few doing the work, way too many without enough education to understand the problem, and they just drag their feet all the way.

It's OK with me, it's their offspring that will pay the price, and some of the younger science deniers will see serious changes.

I can leave this place to relatives so they can feed themselves, but they also refuse to learn anything about the systems, so when something breaks, they will be in the same boat as everyone else.
Spare parts do no good when they aren't educated enough to install them...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> You sure are in love with a straw man .
> I clearly showed you agreed with the statement And made it your own


You've actually "shown" nothing at all to that effect.
You just keep saying the same thing again and again, thinking the outcome will change.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> *What kind of a silly argument* is that? Anything that stores things does not release as much as it is stored in it to begin with that is the nature of storage


It's the one you made when you posted that link.
It uses more energy than it saves.
I copied and pasted from your source.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Yes it only works if you have a hydroelectric plant which you can build wherever you want the dam thing,


No, you really can not.



AmericanStand said:


> And I know you’re going to beat on a strawman that says something like pump storage locations and wind locations are not always located close together but thanks to the miracles of modern technology power-lines , power can be transmitted long distances between *copaired plants*


Meaning you still need conventionally powered generation capabilities in addition to any wind and solar, bringing us back to the beginning.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Free energy is available all along our coast lines. Let the waves operate pumps that pump water into reservoirs for storage. Then use hydro electric power as needed. People are still going to need more though with an ever expanding population.


----------



## 101pigs (Sep 18, 2018)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Free energy is available all along our coast lines. Let the waves operate pumps that pump water into reservoirs for storage. Then use hydro electric power as needed. People are still going to need more though with an ever expanding population.


Yet won't cost anything. Free eneruy forever.  hahaha.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

How many old farts does it take to change a light bulb?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Redlands Okie said:


> Lots of educated people on a variety of subjects shown in the thread.
> 
> Bottom line is that the average person is NOT going to do anything more than walk in the door and flip the switch. The living space better be ready to meet their on demand needs. Their living in already built homes and do not have the ability and or desire to get educated or spend the money up front for a profit later. Heck their not even thinking about being in the house or apartment or using the appliances they have 5 or 10 years from now. Sure not going to try to build, buy or shop to do so.
> 
> Efficient energy (pick a definition of your choice) is going to have to be provided large scale, on demand, economical, and ready for that switch flip whenever its desired. The question is which forms are going to need those needs.


All true.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yes, even YH remembered the offshore hydro, which is powerful and constant.
A huge amount of our population lives on the eastern seaboard and there happens to be this great thing called the Gulf Stream that runs up it too.

2 points I'd like to make.

1) Thomas Edison was a genius but even he was wrong about the form of transmission. If y'all remember from school he wanted everything in DC, not AC. Dumb idea for a smart man, but it's all good, we figured out a better way.

2) The supporters of fossil fuels criticize the efficiencies of alternative methods while conveniently overlooking one of their own shortfalls.
It's that word "fossil".
How long did it take and how much natural energy was used in compressing and storing those fuels in the bowels of the earth BEFORE we stuck that drill in the ground?
If you factor THAT in, how far does your 80-90% efficiency drop?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> *How long did it take and how much natural energy was used *in compressing and storing those fuels in the bowels of the earth BEFORE we stuck that drill in the ground?
> If you factor THAT in, how far does your 80-90% efficiency drop?


It's irrelevant since there's no real evidence we will run out any time soon, and all that was 
"free" energy too. Electricity isn't the major use for "fossil fuels" anyway.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, even YH remembered the offshore hydro, which is powerful and constant.
> A huge amount of our population lives on the eastern seaboard and there happens to be this great thing called the Gulf Stream that runs up it too.
> 
> 2 points I'd like to make.
> ...


There was no we. The man with the brains was a man and immigrant named NICOLA TESLA.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

JeepHammer said:


> OK, that's exactly what I did with technology 20+ years ago.
> I didn't buy into the wasteful, disposable "Consumer Economy" and built earth sheltered & off grid.
> 
> I haven't paid an electric company, water company or sewage treatment bill in 20+ years.
> ...


I like your program. Did it all yourself without the the government hand outs and green credits.

You say you have $28,000 in your solar system, however the average person probably can't install it themselves and would prefer to hire a professional electrician to do it. I know I would and that is going to add a bunch of money to the cost, surely at least another $8-10,000?

Also, you are still very reliant on fossil fuels (propane) in order to keep your routine daily thing going. There was certainly some cost to buy the generator, hook it up and the ongoing LP fuel costs. Guessing you hooked all of this up too and interconnected the systems to house, etc., something not everyone can do.

Even as economically as you have done all of this, it still takes a long time to get your investment back when the average person may only have a $200 per month electric bill.

Kudos for doing what you've done and not having an electric bill, but you would have to admit you are still paying a bill in other ways, particularly if you value your time as being worth anything. I like the fact that you have taken matters into your own hands and set up your own system to cover your own needs. 

It's a whole different story when people start talking about shutting down the coal and natural gas fired plants most of world depends on in favor of wind turbines and solar panels that are expensive and heavily subsidized. We still have to keep the fossil fuel plants intact and running to fill in for times when the wind and solar don't work, and to provide big power needs for manufacturing plants, etc. where many of us make our livelihoods.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

There are several 'Plug & Play' systems for solar electric now, so excited even have synchronous inverters on the back of the panels,
You install, plug them in and take a nap.

It's all in how much research you do.
I wanted pretty well bullet proof, so I spent extra money on that.

You can always tell those reading the the big energy propaganda, they complain about 'Subsidies' without knowing the history of every big project in the US, and around the world.
From locks & canals, to rail roads, to water, sewage & power grids, to highways & interstates,to hospitals, it's all been taxpayer funded to some extent.

Renewable energy has had less funding than all the above, but some will still complain about it no matter what the benefits.
Some would still build the outhouse next to the water well if it was left up to them...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Free energy is available all along our coast lines. Let the waves operate pumps that pump water into reservoirs for storage.


The problem there is to use water to generate power you need height, and most coastlines don't have enough for large hydroelectric turbines.

A second problem would be the volume of water needed.

You would have to create huge salt water reservoirs, which will use lots of valuable property, destroy critical wildlife habitat, along with farmland, and possibly contaminate fresh water aquifers.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

People are looking at this back askwards. What do you need for a reasonably comfortable life, not how you can continue a power hungry luxurious maximum consumption life.

I want light to read when it gets dark. I want a refrigerator to keep food. I want at least a table fan to move air around in summer and sometimes heat from stove in winter. What do I need to get these things? I dont need a $50k solar setup. I dont need bunch regional coal or nuke fired power plants or ginormous wind turbines. I also dont need all the wasteful luxury crap most modern households have that require crazy amounts electricity. 

Think again, what is the MINIMUM you need to be fairly comfortable. Not what you need for current high consumption ultra convenience lifestyle.

I will mention you have to design for efficiency. I can stay comfortable upstairs where ceiling is the insulated roof with only a small table fan. Hottest air goes to roof peak. And if I had a functional cupulo on peak of roof with functional shutters for that hottest air to escape, might be even more comfortable. Downstairs with low ceiling, it takes three larger fans for close to same comfort. and its never as comfortable downstairs in hot weather The hottest air downstairs has nowhere to go so gets continually recirculated. Takes more fan power and thus more electric to force it out the windows.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> People are looking at this back askwards.


Yes, they are.
They keep thinking no one uses electricity anywhere besides at home.



HermitJohn said:


> *What do you need for a reasonably comfortable life*, not how you can continue a power hungry luxurious maximum consumption life.


First you need a job, and that most likely requires transportation.
When you get to work I'm betting you won't get much done if the power isn't on.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

JeepHammer said:


> No accreditation, no credible sources, nothing but the GOP platform.
> (GOP, Gas, Oil, Plutonium)
> This is the long held stance and propaganda from big centralized energy producers.
> It keeps the money rolling into their banks and out of yours.
> ...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Congratulations!!
You've broken the secret code.
You're smarter than most!!


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

HJ; I'm with you. The greenies are going postal, but the plain facts are that we, the ordinary folk, are paying taxes to support the ideas of elites who want to see us walk while they fly. Just ask Whatsisname, the fellow who got rich off carbon offsets. 

Wind only works when the wind blows. 
There is no battery big enough to power NYC when the wind doesn't blow. 

In the N. East people don't want drilling rigs offshore---do they want the thousands of windmills required for wind power?

Solar is fine, on a clear and sunny day if you live under the solar array. If you must transport the power from, Oh, say Arizona to Chicago, not so much. What the hell do you do in February in Minnesota?

We have enough natural gas, discovered reserves, to last for more than a hundred years. I'd say that we used that, our oil and coal reserves, to power up until some kid learns how to harness fusion, or until we learn what to do safely with nuclear and its wastes. 

It took several thousand years to learn how to do without horses and mules; give us a bit more time with oil, gas and coal. 

And while we are at it; what the devil are we to do about 
China, indeed the whole of Africa and Asia? Are they going to get rid of their own polluting sources of power? Of course not; they are not going to give up cooking over cow dung, wood fires, or anything else that they must do to live.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Congratulations!!
> You've broken the secret code.
> You're smarter than most!!


Now there's the best post I've seen in a while!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Now there's the best post *I've seen* in a while!


Did you really "see" it?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The problem there is to use water to generate power you need height, and most coastlines don't have enough for large hydroelectric turbines.
> 
> A second problem would be the volume of water needed.
> 
> You would have to create huge salt water reservoirs, which will use lots of valuable property, destroy critical wildlife habitat, along with farmland, and possibly contaminate fresh water aquifers.


It doesn't require that much height to run hydroelectric. Lots of miles of coastline have plenty of places suitable for reservoirs. It really doesn't require a lot of space to hold a twenty four hour supply.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Did you really "see" it?


It's hard to read white on white. But I have to agree with the last line... I am smarter than most! LOL


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It doesn't require that much height to run hydroelectric. *Lots of miles of coastline have plenty of places suitable for reservoirs.* It really doesn't require a lot of space to hold a twenty four hour supply.


Not here, unless you destroy other valuable property.
There's still not enough height to generate the Megawatts needed.
It all comes down to physics.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Did you really "see" it?


Not until I quoted it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not here, unless you destroy other valuable property.
> There's still not enough height to generate the Megawatts needed.
> It all comes down to physics.


True. Our south eastern coastline is not conducive for hydro. However the north eastern and west coastlines are entirely different. I see no realistic reason to not capitalize on the two thirds of our coast lines that could be used easily and efficiently.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, they are.
> They keep thinking no one uses electricity anywhere besides at home.
> 
> 
> ...


I stand corrected, nobody worked and nobody had a job until after the country was electrified. Cause nobody can do anything without electricity. They were just twiddling their thumbs all those millenia waiting for Edison. 

Seriously business uses excess electric instead of brains just like individuals in their homes. Course if people dont buy all the electric luxury gadgets, then maybe lot business not needed? China will have protesters in the streets when their cheap electronics nobody wants! LOL


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> A job isn’t required, a person can have a trust fund, live on investments, or inherent millions.


Not unless someone before them had a job.
I don't know many who have "inherent" millions.



HermitJohn said:


> I stand corrected, nobody worked and nobody had a job until after the country was electrified. Cause nobody can do anything without electricity. They were just twiddling their thumbs all those millenia waiting for Edison.


We aren't talking about returning to the pre-electric past.
(At least I'm not)
I'm talking about reality now.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I see no realistic reason to not capitalize on the two thirds of our coast lines that could be used easily and efficiently.


They've been talking about it since the 70's.
No one has come up with anything truly workable.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> Course if people dont buy all the electric luxury gadgets, then maybe lot business not needed?


"Electric luxury gadgets" aren't the only things manufactured.

The world isn't the same as it was 100 years ago, and it's unrealistic to think enough will voluntarily go back to that lifestyle to make any difference in the power demands.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> We aren't talking about returning to the pre-electric past.
> (At least I'm not)
> I'm talking about reality now.


Never heard of "back to the future"? Not talking no electric, just less electric. For the important things rather than the silly luxuries. I am comfortable enough and my monthly electric is around $30 to $35. Most of that is fee for being hooked to grid plus bunch taxes and surcharges. (I could use zero electric and still have bill for $25.) whats your monthly bill? Mostly cause I am old and procrastinate a lot that I havent just bought 4 solar panels and half dozen storage batteries and went off grid. That would handle my needs. 

Let the people with $300 a month bills fight over what I was using from the grid. Maybe they can get some more of those smart speakers to report back their private conversations to Amazon. Cause you know none of us can live without such wonders. Maybe half dozen in each room, including the toilet, and few more weatherproofed outdoors?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Electric luxury gadgets" aren't the only things manufactured.


Maybe without the luxury goods, we figure out lot other things we dont need. That we have just been sold the proverbial bill of goods..... and it wasnt for our benefit.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

HermitJohn said:


> Never heard of "back to the future"? Not talking no electric, just less electric. For the important things rather than the silly luxuries. I am comfortable enough and my monthly electric is around $30 to $35. Most of that is fee for being hooked to grid plus bunch taxes and surcharges. (I could use zero electric and still have bill for $25.) whats your monthly bill? Mostly cause I am old and procrastinate a lot that I havent just bought 4 solar panels and half dozen storage batteries and went off grid. That would handle my needs.
> 
> Let the people with $300 a month bills fight over what I was using from the grid. Maybe they can get some more of those smart speakers to report back their private conversations to Amazon. Cause you know none of us can live without such wonders. Maybe half dozen in each room, including the toilet, and few more weatherproofed outdoors?


So, quadruple your electricity use/monthly bill because I have 4 times as many people living in my house. Add some more because two of them are disabled and mostly house-bound so rely on electronics for entertainment and to keep in touch with the outside world. One of them requires electronic medical equipment to run overnight, add some more. I have "luxury" electronic kitchen gadgets that save me time that I then use to drive someone to a doctor's appointment, clean their rooms, do laundry, on and on, instead of standing over a counter or stove doing things by hand. On and on.

We've talked about this before I think. Your situation is not the norm, my situation is not the norm. Maybe there is no norm. Which makes putting judgements on people about what is wasteful or a luxury item kind of silly. Your definitions are going to be different than mine because we are different people with different life circumstances, it doesn't mean either of us are wrong - or right.

What you do isn't feasible for everyone. I doubt it's feasible for most people who are still involved in the rat race/raising children/taking care of family.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Kinda a closed mind there doc. When you say that improve battery technology is not going happen.
> 
> I wish I had your ability to see the future


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08...blem-of-intermittency-of-wind-or-solar-power/

https://thebulletin.org/2009/01/the-limits-of-energy-storage-technology/


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Ah but thats the rub, its a finite planet with way too many humans all wanting more, more, MORE. The physics of it just dont work. Either a few have everything they want and rest suffer for it. Or you kill off good few of the population... nother world war anybody? Or everybody uses less. The super high tech way tends to just provide more for the rich.

Its like this stupid idea of green friendly super high tech cars. What nobody talks about is that nobody except the rich can afford them. Nobody talks about improving and subsidizing rail instead of ever more hiways for the self driving cars nobody can afford.

Something is going to have to change, its just figuring out what. Do nothing or go into denial that a decision has to be made, and the decision will be made for you and guessing it wont be favorable to you.


----------



## red1 (Jun 19, 2007)

Got as far as the envirnmentals don't lilke dams..and stopped...Dams, placed and built correctly can be a big boost to the immediate envirnment...so thats a bunch of kaw kaw...Nuke plants? When I was in the boilermakers (worked for CBI), I worked a bunch of nuke...wolfcreek..ks..byron ill...seneca ill...And I could tell you stories that would make you hide under the bed...

"Nuclear is banned because a hysterical fear of nuclear energy was created by environmental groups."

Is a falsehood...and if it were true..good for the envirnmental groups...Be glad no nuke plants are going up during this time in our history where our "leader" ....is diluting safety procedures for just about any corp that asks....


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They've been talking about it since the 70's.
> No one has come up with anything truly workable.


Because fossil fuels have been very cheap and easily obtainable.


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

Mish said:


> What you do isn't feasible for everyone. I doubt it's feasible for most people who are still involved in the rat race/raising children/taking care of family.


I grew up in a Canadian suburb, in a bungalow of 950 sq. ft., lot 50 feet wide. Most of the houses on the one block of our street were the same size. Just for fun, I did some back-of-napkin math.

If all those little bungalows (which were separated by 10 ft. sideyards), were built as row housing two stories high, here are the approximate impacts:

1. 46% reduction in heating and cooling energy.
2. 455 less linear feet of road pavement, sewer and water mains, telephone lines, a reduction of 64%.
3. 30,000 square feet (two thirds of an acre) of additional green space created, that could be used for gardening, playground, planting trees, etc. 

All this could be accomplished without making any allowances for improving insulation, better heating and cooling technology, using solar panels as supplement, etc. And it doesn't require anyone to reduce either their interior living space or their functional individual yards. It is simply a bonus from slight increased density. 

My point is that by shifting our expectations from what we currently think we need to what we actually need, we can reduce our energy needs dramatically. If the experiment I outlined above was implemented at large scale, you would also see shorter bus routes, shorter walking times to mass transit, fewer streetlights, and a bunch of other savings. 

I know the density argument won't appeal to the rural folk on this forum, but the point is that we make a lot of assumptions about our energy needs. If we approach our energy use from a problem-solving perspective rather than a "reasons not to do anything" perspective, we can make massive changes without undermining our quality of life.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> Never heard of "back to the future"? Not talking no electric, just less electric.


You still keep talking about home use and "luxury items".
That's not where most of it goes.



HermitJohn said:


> I am comfortable enough and my monthly electric is around $30 to $35.


That's irrelevant in the context of power generation needed to run the rest of the world.
Most don't want to live in the 19th century.



HermitJohn said:


> (I could use zero electric and still have bill for $25.)


You could totally disconnect and have no bill, or you could stop using your "luxury items" and conserve all that energy.

None of that will change reality though.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Because fossil fuels have been very cheap and easily obtainable.


I suspect they always will be, relatively speaking.

Until someone can design small fusion reactors, they will remain our main source of power dependable.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

The Paw said:


> I grew up in a Canadian suburb, in a bungalow of 950 sq. ft., lot 50 feet wide. Most of the houses on the one block of our street were the same size. Just for fun, I did some back-of-napkin math.
> 
> If all those little bungalows (which were separated by 10 ft. sideyards), were built as row housing two stories high, here are the approximate impacts:
> 
> ...


Except that, in my case, I use almost no energy for heating or cooling. I live in southern California, maybe run the heat 2 weeks out of the year, only at night, and maybe run the AC a couple of days just for a few hours in the morning. So maybe a week and a half (and I'm being generous) of heating/cooling total for a year. I'm not saving any noticeable energy by changing my house.

I live on a private dirt road that we maintain, no pavement. Still have all of the utilities, but we're pretty packed in here in SoCal, no expansive lawns or rambling properties where I live - we're on about a quarter of an acre but our house is right on the road, our "front yard" is a parking area and nothing else, property to the back - probably about as far from the mains as your row houses. The houses/drives are close together but we all get our own private "green space" behind our houses, which I much prefer. I have a garden, trees I can eat from, room for my dogs and chickens, instead of a playground I have no use for and trees to look at. 

Lastly, you go ahead and move your mother in law into your 950 square foot house along with the other people who already live there. I guarantee you'll be wanting at least one more room on the furthest end of your row house for either you or her ASAP, or at least wishing you could go hide in your own garden instead of having to run into everyone and _their_ MIL in the community garden  

None of what I have may seem essential to you, but it is essential to me. If for nothing other than my sanity.

P.S. - (love my MIL but we do need our separate areas to retreat to when the other one gets on our nerves, can't imagine 950 square feet and 4 adults - 3 women - shoot me now).


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

without fossil fuels whats going to power lawn mowers, garden tillers,portable water pumps, string trimmers,chainsaws 4wheelers or portable welders?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

SRSLADE said:


> There was no we. The man with the brains was a man and immigrant named NICOLA TESLA.


I know, but that's even more obscure history, not to mention his plans of wireless transmission of electricity that never came to be, so I didn't want to overload anyone's donkey with all that.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

D-BOONE said:


> without fossil fuels whats going to power lawn mowers, garden tillers,portable water pumps, string trimmers,chainsaws 4wheelers or portable welders?


Well Dogey!
Without naming names, I heard tell you could run just about any motor on Granny's Rheumatoid medicine that she keeps in an old brown jug.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's irrelevant since there's no real evidence we will run out any time soon, and all that was
> "free" energy too.


I was hoping you'd say something like that.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not here, unless you destroy other valuable property.
> There's still not enough height to generate the Megawatts needed.
> It all comes down to physics.





Yvonne's hubby said:


> True. Our south eastern coastline is not conducive for hydro. However the north eastern and west coastlines are entirely different. I see no realistic reason to not capitalize on the two thirds of our coast lines that could be used easily and efficiently.


Maybe you're not thinking of the same system as I was, which is more like a wind turbine anchored in the ocean current.

https://www.coastalreview.org/2017/05/project-looks-tap-gulf-streams-energy/


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

SRSLADE said:


> There was no we. The man with the brains was a man and immigrant named NICOLA TESLA.


Not all of his ideas worked out. Just like all of Edison’s did not work out. We could use some more like them, including similar skilled knowledgeable immigrants.

Lots of problems to solve here for sure. Hard to wrap ones head around the issues of getting it done elsewhere around the world.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> I know, but that's even more obscure history, not to mention his plans of wireless transmission of electricity that never came to be, so I didn't want to overload anyone's donkey with all that.


AC that we all use was invented by TESLA. It's not obscure. It's ignorance on our part for not knowing this.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


>


That guy has been smokin a oil and coal pipe for too long.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

painterswife said:


> They can also do this with in-ground heating tubes. Extra heat is pumped down into the ground under homes and recovered back when needed.


 That's exactly right,...no need to store all the energy in expensive batteries, when much of it is used for heat,....water storage of BTU`s is simple and cheap.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Kinda a closed mind there doc. When you say that improve battery technology is not going happen.
> 
> I wish I had your ability to see the future


 Correct, batteries are getting better all the time.

Even old lead acid batteries are fine right now and are currently the cheapest way to store electricity.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Redlands Okie said:


> Lots of educated people on a variety of subjects shown in the thread.
> 
> Bottom line is that the average person is NOT going to do anything more than walk in the door and flip the switch. The living space better be ready to meet their on demand needs. Their living in already built homes and do not have the ability and or desire to get educated or spend the money up front for a profit later. Heck their not even thinking about being in the house or apartment or using the appliances they have 5 or 10 years from now. Sure not going to try to build, buy or shop to do so.
> 
> Efficient energy (pick a definition of your choice) is going to have to be provided large scale, on demand, economical, and ready for that switch flip whenever its desired. The question is which forms are going to need those needs.



For those people, it will be extreme energy costs and energy poverty.

I have no pity for those who choose to live in a unsustainable manner in unsustainable areas...….they will pay the price.


The problem is state of mind,.,.mindset,...however you want to phrase it,...…...people get locked into a way of thinking or a method and scale it to fit the misperceptions.

A large grid type structure that doles you out a allotment for a fee is not the future,...….it just part of the consumerism debt prison mentality.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

HermitJohn said:


> People are looking at this back askwards. What do you need for a reasonably comfortable life, not how you can continue a power hungry luxurious maximum consumption life.
> 
> I want light to read when it gets dark. I want a refrigerator to keep food. I want at least a table fan to move air around in summer and sometimes heat from stove in winter. What do I need to get these things? I dont need a $50k solar setup. I dont need bunch regional coal or nuke fired power plants or ginormous wind turbines. I also dont need all the wasteful luxury crap most modern households have that require crazy amounts electricity.
> 
> ...



No need to fret, you can have your cake and eat it too,....run A/C 24/7 at 65, leave the lights on all day and night,....cheap easily and cleanly,....in a way that is easy and cheap,......but it does not prop up consumerism or big business, so you will see or hear little about it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> Maybe you're not thinking of the same system as I was, which is more like a wind turbine anchored in the ocean current.
> 
> https://www.coastalreview.org/2017/05/project-looks-tap-gulf-streams-energy/


Nope, I was thinking to harness the power of waves. Whole different system. Using floats attached levers as the waves raise and lower the levers which drives a water pump. Water could be pumped into reservoirs on shore. Electricity being generated as it flows back out to sea.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I would agree with you if you change that to say “a little bit of electricity “

When you have millions of megawatts to store pumped storage seems the better choice .


Bearfootfarm said:


> The problem there is to use water to generate power you need height, and most coastlines don't have enough for large hydroelectric turbines.
> 
> A second problem would be the volume of water needed.
> 
> You would have to create huge salt water reservoirs, which will use lots of valuable property, destroy critical wildlife habitat, along with farmland, and possibly contaminate fresh water aquifers.


 Well there you go again locked in useless fossil fuel propaganda ...’can you show us any proof of those Statements In a practical sense?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

SRSLADE said:


> AC that we all use was invented by TESLA. It's not obscure. It's ignorance on our part for not knowing this.


Yes it is, but it isn't ignorance that's entirely to blame for that, there's quite a bit of deception by the PTB as well to KEEP the masses ignorant.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

doc- said:


> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08...blem-of-intermittency-of-wind-or-solar-power/
> 
> https://thebulletin.org/2009/01/the-limits-of-energy-storage-technology/


I’m sorry but posting a link to those that preach nonsense doesn’t help at all .
Ignoring answers is much different than their not being any solutions to the problem


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes it is, but it isn't ignorance that's entirely to blame for that, there's quite a bit of deception by the PTB as well to KEEP the masses ignorant.


It wasn't so much ptb as it was to create a false history in favor of a guy willing to play ball.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Mish said:


> So, quadruple your electricity use/monthly bill because I have 4 times as many people living in my house. Add some more because two of them are disabled and mostly house-bound so rely on electronics for entertainment and to keep in touch with the outside world. One of them requires electronic medical equipment to run overnight, add some more. I have "luxury" electronic kitchen gadgets that save me time that I then use to drive someone to a doctor's appointment, clean their rooms, do laundry, on and on, instead of standing over a counter or stove doing things by hand. On and on.
> 
> We've talked about this before I think. Your situation is not the norm, my situation is not the norm. Maybe there is no norm. Which makes putting judgements on people about what is wasteful or a luxury item kind of silly. Your definitions are going to be different than mine because we are different people with different life circumstances, it doesn't mean either of us are wrong - or right.
> 
> What you do isn't feasible for everyone. I doubt it's feasible for most people who are still involved in the rat race/raising children/taking care of family.


 You have to remember ,...for a enviro Nazi the only acceptable number is 0...…..


One person or a 1000 people with campfires is fine,....1 billion people on the same night, not soo good.

If people and businesses in areas where they can would do renewables, the rest burning fossil fuels is no problem,...….reduction is fine, no need for total elimination.

Consumerism needs to be maintained and businesses want to sell you things and enviro nazies want totalitarian results, so no viable options get used.


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

Fair enough, California has a total different energy profile than where I live. Opportunities to reduce footprint are going to vary by region. For instance, you would get way more yield from solar panels than I would.

But my main point is that if we re-examine our assumptions, we can find strategies that work locally without necessarily undermining our quality of life.



Mish said:


> Except that, in my case, I use almost no energy for heating or cooling. I live in southern California, maybe run the heat 2 weeks out of the year, only at night, and maybe run the AC a couple of days just for a few hours in the morning. So maybe a week and a half (and I'm being generous) of heating/cooling total for a year. I'm not saving any noticeable energy by changing my house.
> 
> I live on a private dirt road that we maintain, no pavement. Still have all of the utilities, but we're pretty packed in here in SoCal, no expansive lawns or rambling properties where I live - we're on about a quarter of an acre but our house is right on the road, our "front yard" is a parking area and nothing else, property to the back - probably about as far from the mains as your row houses. The houses/drives are close together but we all get our own private "green space" behind our houses, which I much prefer. I have a garden, trees I can eat from, room for my dogs and chickens, instead of a playground I have no use for and trees to look at.
> 
> ...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

SRSLADE said:


> It wasn't so much ptb as it was to create a false history in favor of a guy willing to play ball.


Yeah, I consider it a little of both.
My main point was that there's more than one way to do things and it may not always come from the accepted or chosen sources. Sometimes we discover a better way by NOT accepting the status quo, often in fact.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> When you have millions of megawatts to store pumped storage seems the better choice .


There are no "millions of megawatts" to store and it's only practical where there's an existing hydroelectric plant. It's still a net loss of energy. Your source said so.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Well Dogey!
> Without naming names, I heard tell you could run just about any motor on Granny's Rheumatoid medicine that she keeps in an old brown jug.


Unless you intend to plow with a mule there will be fuel burned to grow all that corn.
We already know it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than that gallon can put out.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Maybe you're not thinking of the same system as I was, which is more like a wind turbine anchored in the ocean current.


That has no relation at all to what he suggested.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That has no relation at all to what he suggested.


That's correct and I believe I said that.
There's always a better way ya know.
From that link.


> WANCHESE – As the Gulf Stream passes Cape Hatteras, the movement of water is some 45 times greater than the flow of every river on earth. That amount of moving water represents an extraordinary amount of potential energy, enough energy, according to the Coastal Studies Institute, that harnessing just 0.1 percent of the available power would yield the equivalent of 150 nuclear power plants. That’s 300 gigawatts of power.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> painterswife said: ↑
> They can also do this with in-ground heating tubes. Extra heat is pumped down into the ground under homes and recovered back when needed.


That does little to help the supply of electricity.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

With a little due diligence and common sense, one can weed thru the garbage...….to find the gold.



I am getting ready to redo a 2 story farm house to net zero off grid super insulated and refurbish the entire property for approx. 30k...…...will be running the AC 24/7 at 65 degrees a movie theater, lots of outdor lighting etc etc etc a shop with welders etc etc etc.


Propane back up generator etc etc...……….the total elimination of fossil fuels does not ever have to happen, especially now,...……...the eco nazies ruin everything with the 0 or failure mentality.


The planet is not some fragile thing where some one starts a car in America and 1000 animals and people fall over dead in Greenland. The planet can deal with and support a lot of fossil fuel/co2 usage,.....no reasonable reason to shoot for 0 usage at this time while ignoring what could be done easily and cheaply to reduce usage now.


And just so people do not get the wrong idea,...I hate the green movement and everything about them,....they have done more to hurt than help. I would be happy if I had to smash a baby seal with each solar panel in order to use it and crush a polar bear with the batteries,...….almost everything ever alive on this planet is extinct, things will come and go no matter if we exist or not.


The reason I am doing any of this is personal selfish reasons and to save money and escape as much of the debt prison as possible,...……I do not want to be associated in any way with the eco nazies,.....they are nutz and a danger to society and the planet.


The planets fine, it has been dealing with more co2 than we could ever hope to release,......one huge volcano eruption would put out more co2 than we have in the last 200 years,...the planets fine,.....its the humans that are messed up ,.....in about every way one could elaborate on.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> That's correct.
> There's always a better way ya know.


Yet there's no one doing it on a commercial scale, even though the technology is 50 years old.
Lots of things look good on paper.



> WANCHESE – As the Gulf Stream passes Cape Hatteras, the movement of water is some *45 times greater than the flow of every river on earth*. That amount of moving water represents an extraordinary amount of potential energy, enough energy, according to the Coastal Studies Institute, that harnessing just 0.1 percent of the available power would yield the equivalent of 150 nuclear power plants. That’s 300 gigawatts of power.


That's useless trivia being put forth as sales hype, not practical reality.
https://www.livescience.com/47188-ocean-turbines-renewable-energy.html



> Tapping the energy of ocean currents is a promising idea, but* it's not going to replace fossil fuels*, said Andrea Copping, a marine and hydrokinetic energy researcher at the U.S. Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratories in Sequim, Washington. Ocean turbines should be part of an "all-of-the-above" approach, along with other sources of renewable energy, she told Live Science.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Well there you go again locked in useless fossil fuel propaganda ...’can you show us any proof of those Statements In a practical sense?


It was shown days ago.
Even your own source supports it.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's irrelevant since there's no real evidence we will run out any time soon, and all that was
> "free" energy too. Electricity isn't the major use for "fossil fuels" anyway.


Isn't coal a fossil fuel?
https://www.worldcoal.org/coal/uses-coal



Bearfootfarm said:


> Unless you intend to plow with a mule there will be fuel burned to grow all that corn.
> We already know it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than that gallon can put out.


Never had a mule. Do they eat corn? They have to eat something or they wouldn't be able to pull a plow.

Many power tools are now available in battery operated versions. Solar panels can be used to charge batteries. Seems like that solves the lawn mower problem. Or maybe people could just use that mule to mow the yard after he's spent the day pulling the plow. Win-win there.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> I’m sorry but posting a link to those that preach nonsense doesn’t help at all .
> *Ignoring answers* is much different than their not being any solutions to the problem


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Danaus29 said:


> Isn't coal a fossil fuel?
> https://www.worldcoal.org/coal/uses-coal


Yes, but that doesn't change what I said regarding "fossil fuels".



Danaus29 said:


> Many power tools are now available in battery operated versions. Solar panels can be used to charge batteries. *Seems like that solves the lawn mower problem*. Or maybe people could just use that mule to mow the yard after he's spent the day pulling the plow. Win-win there.


Only if you have virtually no lawn to mow.
I don't foresee people reverting to circa 1800 technology though.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Energy reduction isn't something most businesses are willing to commit to. Most businesses could easily reduce their energy consumption but very few are willing. I've been in several govt offices and those places are "need a jacket" cold in the summer and "sweat your brains out" warm in the winter. The govt wants the little guy to use LED's and compact florescent bulbs but their offices are daylight bright with energy consuming bulbs and fixtures. 

The Columbus Zoo has replaced all their old Christmas lights with LED's. I don't know how much energy it has saved but they are making an effort to conserve.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, but that doesn't change what I said regarding "fossil fuels".
> 
> 
> Only if you have virtually no lawn to mow.
> I don't foresee people reverting to circa 1800 technology though.


Natural gas is a fossil fuel. It's major use is electricity, major but just barely.
https://geology.com/articles/natural-gas-uses/

My neighbor mows about 1/4 of an acre with a battery operated mower once a week. I don't have the solar conversion chart in front of me but I don't think it would take a week to recharge the battery. Maybe if you had half an acre or more of grass or use a riding mower the solar conversion wouldn't be as useful. But since grass is mowed usually in the summer when there is more daylight it should be a faster recharge than it would be in the depth of winter. Then again, if you can charge a battery array with a capacity large enough to run a whole house I would think that one single car size battery would be a piece of cake. Of course you could always set up a larger system to charge the additional batteries.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Danaus29 said:


> Energy reduction isn't something most businesses are willing to commit to.


They will if it's cost effective.
In many cases it's simply not.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Danaus29 said:


> Natural gas is a fossil fuel. It's major use is electricity, *major but* *just barely*.


Petroleum is the most widely used "fossil fuel" and it's main uses are transportation and heating.
Much of it goes into plastics, fertilizers and medicines.



Danaus29 said:


> My neighbor mows about 1/4 of an acre with a battery operated mower once a week.


One of my dog pens is a quarter acre.
I already said a battery powered mower is great if do virtually no real mowing.



Danaus29 said:


> Then again, if you can charge a battery array with a capacity large enough to run a whole house I would think that one single car size battery would be a piece of cake. Of course you could always set up a larger system to charge the additional batteries.


How much petroleum is used in the mining an processing of the metals in the batteries and solar panels?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

shawnlee said:


> With a little due diligence and common sense, one can weed thru the garbage...….to find the gold.
> 
> 
> 
> I am getting ready to redo a 2 story farm house to net zero off grid super insulated and refurbish the entire property for approx. 30k...…...will be running the AC 24/7 at 65 degrees a movie theater, lots of outdor lighting etc etc etc a shop with welders etc etc etc.


That's great!
I love hearing solutions that others come up with, there's a quite a few members on here that have used the best of what is practical and cost efficient to get the job done.



> Propane back up generator etc etc...……….the total elimination of fossil fuels does not ever have to happen, especially now,...……...the eco nazies ruin everything with the 0 or failure mentality.
> 
> 
> The planet is not some fragile thing where some one starts a car in America and 1000 animals and people fall over dead in Greenland. The planet can deal with and support a lot of fossil fuel/co2 usage,.....no reasonable reason to shoot for 0 usage at this time while ignoring what could be done easily and cheaply to reduce usage now.
> ...



That's similar to how I view things. If it makes economic sense and is better or no worse for the environment, why not go ahead and do what's best for yourself and let those who want to fight about it waste their time and energy fighting.
There are plenty of people with that "all or nothing" attitude and there always will be. They rarely have anything useful to contribute.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

My mistake. When you said "fossil fuels" I didn't realize you meant only petroleum.

How much yard do you really need to mow? My grandparents had 120 acres and mowed less than 1. And every other week at that. 

I don't see where keeping your employees from freezing in the summer and sweating in the winter is not cost effective. But I can tell you from experience that it's awful difficult to do a job requiring manual dexterity when the ac is so cold your fingers are numb.

So you don't believe in implementing energy conservation measures or increasing the use of renewable energy sources. That's fine. No one is saying you have to do either.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Danaus29 said:


> My mistake. When you said "fossil fuels" I didn't realize you meant only petroleum.


I didn't mean just petroleum.
I also didn't mean just coal.

I meant what I said, which was "fossil fuels"



Danaus29 said:


> How much yard do you really need to mow?


All of it. 
The total each time can vary.



Danaus29 said:


> I don't see where keeping your employees from freezing in the summer and sweating in the winter is not cost effective.


The fact you're not comfortable doesn't mean the workers aren't.
Heating and cooling aren't always the largest electrical load a business has.



Danaus29 said:


> So you don't believe in implementing energy conservation measures or increasing the use of renewable energy sources.


I never said any such thing.
Perhaps you should scroll back and read my posts again if that's what you think I've said.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Fossil fuels, I pointed out 2 that are used primarily for electric production. You pointed out one that isn't. In all fairness crude oil is also not used primarily for electricity. If you want to be more specific please say so. 

You like to mow. Fine. You mow dozens of acres. Also fine. Most people don't mow that much and can get by just fine with a battery operated mower. You aren't most people. Again fine. To each his own.

When you have everyone in an office complaining about the cold just to suit one person, then the needs of the many should outweigh the wants of the one. Adjust the thermostat. I realize that environmental control is just a small portion of the electric consumption. It was an example and a starting point for cutting consumption.

You continually argue against conservation and using renewable energy. It is definitely implied, although not outright stated.

I'm done playing your game.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> That's great!
> I love hearing solutions that others come up with, there's a quite a few members on here that have used the best of what is practical and cost efficient to get the job done.
> 
> That's similar to how I view things. If it makes economic sense and is better or no worse for the environment, why not go ahead and do what's best for yourself and let those who want to fight about it waste their time and energy fighting.
> There are plenty of people with that "all or nothing" attitude and there always will be. They rarely have anything useful to contribute.


 Thanks.


My plan,...a good plan, starts with determining total usage based on actual usage to maintain comfort...….


My usage is a little over 300KWH per month...….

One needs to see what solar will do in their area...

https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php


For my scenario a 3KW solar array will give me plenty which is about 2,000 bucks, 1200 buck inverter and misc items puts me about 4,000 bucks...…..about a 4 year break even scenario, giving me 400 to 700 kw a month, the high number is summer which is good for ac usage as I like it cold.

This grid tied system turning the meter backwards to 0,...….the monthly service charge you can never get rid of is about 28 bucks per month.


At the mid 30`s per month is where it becomes break even for a battery bank, assuming a 5 year battery life.


A lead acid battery bank is the cheapest way to go...….figuring a daily usae of 10 kw and a discharge of 50%, that means 20kw worth of battery storage which is about 2000 bucks. or 33 bucks a month over 5 years.


The second step is to do a whole house load on what you will use based on location....

https://beopt.nrel.gov/downloadBEopt2


This allows you to understand the entire houses usage and break it in to each part and run different house designs.


My design I opted for is 14 inch thick walls at r-50 and a mostly r-80 roof/ceiling.


For a 2 story house the cooling load for the hottest day of the year is at about 6000 BTUh or the smallest window unit you can buy will do about 1400 square feet. Keep in mind 50% of heating and cooling costs are the windows in a typical house. The heating load is less than 10,000 BTUh in the coldest winter day.


One can find out what the BTU load of your house is with the manual J calculator.....

http://www.loadcalc.net/


To put this in perspective, this is the smallest window unit cooling a 2 story house to 65 on a 100 degree day and the average hair dryer making it 70 when it is 0 outside...….super minimal.


The extra insulation and solar will set me back about 6k over normal, but the insulation has a 1.5 year break even, drastically lowers the solar I need making the solar minus the batteries a 4 year break even.


The batteries leave me spending about 5 bucks more a month than the electric company service charge which you will always have to pay no matter if you use zero electric and will only go up over time. Plus with the batteries I do not have to worry about outages from the grid as grid tied only leaves you with nothing or minimal when the grid is out. I can live with that costing me 5 bucks a month, I will skip one dinner out for 2 in a year....


A small duel fuel generator hooked to my propane tank to charge batteries in case it is needed. if the generator was used every day a 500 gallon tank would last about 500 days keeping the batteries charged up like solar would.


Since I can make electricity, but not propane or natural gas, the house will primarily electric,...electric uses more than propane, but when you are not paying for electric, no one really cares how much it uses as long as you have enough....the only reason people care about how efficient a appliance is ,is because the electric costs money.....if it was free , no one would care about energy star.


I will use hydronic in floor heating as it is the best cost effective way to get heat and more comfortable. That system is about 1000 bucks...……..


Also a big mistake many make is some grand complex HVAC system that costs thousands and will never break even,....just wasted money. A single 125 buck window unit is all my house will need, however I will be using 4 of them in a thru the wall mount.

One for the living room/kitchen and one in each bedroom...…...500 bucks for the entire AC system and is gross overkill for the house,...upside is super low per unit costs, no service calls, who would pay 200 for a service call on a 125 buck unit, so when it quits, just toss and buy new, making staying with current technology easy, repairs even easier......no crazy lossy ductwork or complex expensive minisplit that the first service call more than wipes out any energy savings.


Same with the heating...….a few hundred bucks of pex tubing in the floor and a 200 buck instant on water heater.....super cheap, super easy, super easy to fix or upgrade to current technology.


No water bill, well, no sewer bill, septic, no power bill,solar...…..property tax is the only inescapable bill and at 125 bucks a year,….I can handle that.


Solar is more viable now than ever...…..PS,...not doing the 30% tax credit either.....I could get 30% of the solar set up back,.....which would make it about 1800 cheaper, making the pay back less than 3 years...…


I am not sure there is a compelling enough argument out there to not go bill free in 3 years for a minimal out of pocket now.…...well actually bill free immediately, you are just paying 3 years up front and then no bill for a very long time......


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

What I see is a lot of argument from people that insist on being locked into a dogma.

These people are ALWAYS bumper sticker & Facebag meme 'Educated' with 'Degrees' from YouTube.

The truth is, unless you own the hardware and understand how it works,
Have some sort of actual education in electronics & thermodynamics, can't wire a 'Hairball' (or know what one is), then you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

You don't have to have a masters degree, but if you don't understand the basic electromagnetic link, capacitance, inductance, resistance, etc, and REALLY understand them not just the YouTube tutorial, you aren't going to understand what's actually going on.

Any fuel that burns wastes 65%-80% of it's 'Energy' to thermodynamic losses.
For fossil fuels, almost no one considers the cost/damage done by extracting those fossil fuels, the pollution they cause when burned, and the wasted after they are burned.

Then there is the cost of rebuilding the power plants, any boiler maker can tell you fire boxes, boilers, coolers have to rebuilt continuously.
Then consider the materials that can withstand those temps and highly corrosive environments.
Maybe there is a boiler maker that can confirm how much work and how expensive even the base materials are...

The easy, high quality coal is simply gone.
What's left is dirty/low quality, deep, and dangerous to get at.
Since I live where they mine coal, I've seen the damage it does to land and people first hand.

Let's not forget transportation, barges, rail lines, cars, trucks, etc.

The extraction process for methane is less dangerous, and pipelines transport the gas with much less infrastructure. 
Only an idiot that doesn't understand the most simple chemistry thinks methane is 'Clean', but it's a cleaner than coal.

Centralized power plants rely on water, so they are mostly on rivers (fresh water).
This is both because water is needed for the steam generation & cooling.
Keep in mind that steam power has been used since Roman times for work...
And it's fairly inefficient, as most basic technologies were.
It's not like we use goats for rotary motion anymore...

Since the Romans didn't understand wing lift, they didn't have effective rotor blades for windmills. We have better science than the Romans...

The Romans didn't use electricity, so they didn't have a use for photovoltaic cells.
We have a use for electricity, and we have better science.

The intention of the OP was to pass along 'Information', as in renewables 'Hitting A Wall'.
What's 'Hit A Wall' is fossil fuels. We know exactly what they will and won't do on both large & small scale, since they have to burn, they will produce carbon waste. Period.
Carbon based fuels are subject to the laws of thermodynamics, and the electricity they produce are subject to the laws of electromagnetism.

Just like I posted back on page 1, the information is incorrect.
Wind turbines are continuously improving as science progresses.
Solar panels are continuously improving with the science.
There isn't a 'Wall' other than thermodynamics and laws of electromagnetism, and since useable electrical power is only about 150 years old, we are still learning.

------------

Science isn't the big issue...
Knock that out of your head, and start from scratch.

99.99% of people really don't care where the electrical production comes from.
As long as the lights go on when they flip the switch, they don't care.
It actually doesn't matter where it comes from unless you think larger picture...

Some people won't think past beer & pizza, others can't think past 'Social Media'...

The fact of the matter is a decentralized power grid makes the country stronger.
A decentralized power grid reduces failures.
A decentralized power grid, as in power production locally takes the stress off a power grid that 100 years old in some places, much of the power grid is 60+ years old.
When the population increases more than double, and power consumption has increased by a factor of 10 per person, that's a LOT of stress on that grid.

Electrical principals tell us the more current you try and force through any given conductor, the more resistance increases, resistance being more losses.
While companies are building furiously, they are sucking up tax dollars, Jacking up rates, YOU pay for it one way or another...

And for the far right wingers,
Think about 'Imminent Domain', land being taken for all those power line right of ways.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Danaus29 said:


> In all fairness crude oil is also *not used primarily for electricity*.


That's what I said in the first place.



Danaus29 said:


> Most people don't mow that much and can get by just fine with a battery operated mower. You aren't most people. Again fine. To each his own.


I don't think you really know what I said to begin with, since it has nothing to do with what you're talking about now.



> You continually argue against conservation and using renewable energy. It is definitely implied, although *not outright stated*.


Now you're accusing me of something you admit I never really said.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Danaus29 said:


> So you don't believe in implementing energy conservation measures or increasing the use of renewable energy sources. That's fine. No one is saying you have to do either.





Bearfootfarm said:


> Now you're accusing me of something you admit I never really said.







> ↑
> Energy reduction isn't something most businesses are willing to commit to.
> They will if it's cost effective.
> *In many cases it's simply not.*





Bearfootfarm said:


> "Electric luxury gadgets" aren't the only things manufactured.
> 
> The world isn't the same as it was 100 years ago, and it's unrealistic to think enough will voluntarily go back to that lifestyle to make any difference in the power demands.


Energy conservation is always cost effective, the term doesn't mean going back to the stone age or a primitive lifestyle as was repeatedly implied. It means using as little as necessary, big difference.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Energy conservation is always cost effective,


You're entitled to that *opinion*.
That doesn't mean it's always accurate.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

shawnlee said:


> Thanks.
> 
> 
> My plan,...a good plan, starts with determining total usage based on actual usage to maintain comfort...….
> ...



Yep.
The very 1st thing they teach you is to reduce your consumption before you start spending money on equipment.
Another point you brought up has to do with just that.
Grid tied v. off grid.
You can avoid the capital cost of supplying your own battery bank by using the already provided grid system.
(There's a caveat to that I learned with the other electricians in the advanced class I took on solar panels. That hidden problem is the size of your neighborhood transformer.)

Of course to DO that you CAN'T disconnect your meter totally and therefore you WILL have a base charge even if you use no KW from the power company.
I guess that would be your solar system financing the fossil fuel company when it's not being used, huh?

I remember someone made a similar point earlier on this thread as a reason that we would always need fossil fuel plants to back up alternative energy. That road goes both ways, whether people know about it or not.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're entitled to that *opinion*.
> That doesn't mean it's always accurate.


Can you think of an instance where it would NOT be accurate?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Can you think of an instance where it would NOT be accurate?


Of course.



farmrbrown said:


> I remember someone made a similar point earlier on this thread as a reason that we would always need fossil fuel plants to back up alternative energy.


AmericanStand made that same claim but I don't recall if it was ever verified.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

Ever notice that all the wind turbine and solar panel manufacturing plants are hooked up to the fossil fuel powered electrical grid. They can't even produce enough reliable power from their own equipment to make their own equipment. 

Those towers the big wind turbines sit atop are a big old hunk of steel that likely came from a massive electric arc steel mill furnace, the blades are some type of oil based poly plastic, and it took a whole lot of fossil fuel to dig the holes build the roads, transport them and set them up. The manufacture and construction of these "green energy" devices requires a whole bunch of fossil fuels. And the worst is the end result, thousands of acres of those big ugly towers on the horizon, and blinking red lights at night for the rest of our lives.

I'd much rather see a just few efficient nat gas / coal / nuke / hydro power plants, than whole country sides full of those ugly turbines. That's some serous visual pollution.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Of course.


Ok, then please tell me your example.



> AmericanStand made that same claim but I don't recall if it was ever verified.


I remember it, I'll see if I can find it.
This one is yours.


> They will be fine as long as the wind blows.
> 
> They still have to maintain conventionally fueled plants for times when they can't use the wind turbines. That's all explained in the OP article.
> 
> Their population is like one of our states.


This one from another.


> This grid tied system turning the meter backwards to 0,...….the monthly service charge you can never get rid of is about 28 bucks per month.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Ok, then please tell me your example.


No, thank you.
I'm sure you can come up with many examples of your own. 

I could post one and you'd just respond with  as you did above.
I'll conserve my own energy this time.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, thank you.
> I'm sure you can come up with many examples of your own.
> 
> I could post one and you'd just respond with  as you did above.
> I'll conserve my own energy this time.


I see, you could but you won't.
Unfortunately I can't provide an example, because it defies logic.
Your sudden choice to "conserve" your own energy is fascinating though, considering your expressed opinion about the effectiveness of doing so.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Unfortunately I can't provide an example, because it defies logic.


You could, but you won't, although "logic" has nothing to do with it at all.



farmrbrown said:


> Your sudden choice to "conserve" your own energy is fascinating though, considering your expressed opinion about the effectiveness of doing so.


I never said it was ineffective.
I said wind and solar won't reduce the need for conventionally fueled plants as backup.
It's all still there to read.


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

One of the interesting aspects of trying to move away from fossil fuels, is that the growth of renewable energy sources is going to have a different scale and more regional variation. Micro-generation becomes much more important, and while it doesn't have the huge single impact of a megawatt project, it can also be more integrated into local communities.

A few years ago I was visiting friends in Pfolbach, a village in Germany. It used to be a farming village, but over time has evolved into a bedroom community with commuters to a nearby city. The original farm families lease their fields to farming operations that farm material for bio-fuels.

Anyway, each house in this village has solar panels, and sells energy back to the grid on a 10 year guaranteed price. There is also a creek that runs through the village and a small furniture factory is allowed to use 75% of the stream flow to generate power to be used in their factory. They are required to maintain 25% natural flow to preserve fish and aquatic life in the creek. It is a very inobtrusive approach to energy generation, but when you see how widely it is deployed throughout the country, you can see it would add up to a significant impact.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

The Paw said:


> a village in Germany


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany#Energy_and_infrastructure

"Germany is committed to the Paris Agreement and several other treaties promoting biodiversity, low emission standards, water management, and the renewable energy commercialisation.[181] The country's household recycling rate is among the highest in the world—at around 65%.[182]

Nevertheless, *the country's total greenhouse gas emissions were the highest in the EU* *in 2010*.[183]

The German energy transition (_Energiewende_) is the recognised move to a sustainable economy by means of energy efficiency and renewable energy.[184]

In 2014, energy sources were: oil (35.0%); coal, including lignite (24.6%); natural gas (20.5%); nuclear (8.1%); hydro-electric and renewable sources (11.1%).[178] "

That's showing 80% of the production was fossil fuels.
It says the plan is to get rid of the nuclear plants.

They are similar in size to about 3 of our smaller states combined.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Fishindude said:


> Ever notice that all the wind turbine and solar panel manufacturing plants are hooked up to the fossil fuel powered electrical grid. They can't even produce enough reliable power from their own equipment to make their own equipment.


How do YOU know where that electrical production came from?
Hydro electric? Wind? Solar? Or fossil fuel?
A watt is a watt, how do YOU tell the difference how & where it was produced?

Portugal produces more than 100% of it's electric from renewables at times, even entire month they make excess and sell the excess.
Denmark is above 45% renewables,
Both big makers of renewable energy equipment, how do YOU know if the power used to make the equipment was renewable or not?

--------------

This is a prime example of the political dogma people get locked into.
Making ABSLOUTE statements about things they have no first hand knowledge about...

---------------



> Those towers the big wind turbines sit atop are a big old hunk of steel that likely came from a massive electric arc steel mill furnace, the blades are some type of oil based poly plastic, and it took a whole lot of fossil fuel to dig the holes build the roads, transport them and set them up.


Fact: Most metals used by humans is recycled, it had a previous life as something.
It was pried out of the ground (probably with fossil fuels simply because renewables weren't available at the time) and had an entirely different first life.

Fact: 'Plastics' (from petroleum) aren't strong enough for blades.
Blades are often made from aluminum on smaller generators, blades on big generators are mostly made from carbon fiber, which takes a lot less energy than aluminum.

Fact: Most wind generators & solar farms don't have paved roads.
Maybe some rock, but very few bother with roads of any kind.
Wind generators get 'Planted', they are in open fields and often have crops planted around them, or they sit on bedrock offshore.
The only 'Roads' I've ever seen for wind/solar fields are dirt/gravel, and mostly on mountain ridge lines.
They are a fraction of number, and length of power line right-of-ways that have to continuously be mowed & trees trimmed.
Power lines & trees don't get along...

Let's also not forget all those power transmission line towers,
The foundation provided for those towers isn't much different than a wind generator, but the towers DO NOT generate anything...
More or less, the same material investment in the FOUNDATION can actually produce electricity instead of just holding lines up over thousands of miles.



> The manufacture and construction of these "green energy" devices requires a whole bunch of fossil fuels.


Why EXACTLY do you think wind, hydro or solar PV takes any more energy to produce than any other comparable equipment?
Do you REALLY think the glass on a solar PV panels takes more energy to produce?
Do you think the aluminum, steel, copper etc takes MORE energy to produce than any other aluminum, steel or copper product?



> And the worst is the end result, thousands of acres of those big ugly towers on the horizon, and blinking red lights at night for the rest of our lives.


And there you have it...
NIMBY. Not In My Back Yard.
YOU are fine with big, ugly centralized power plants as long as they aren't in YOUR back yard!

We have big, ugly smoke stacks, thousands of acres of land for the power plants, thousands of acres of big, ugly power line towers & lines in all directions around here...
But as long as *YOU* don't have to look at them, it's OK for *YOU*.

It's OK for power companies to build power towers just a few feet short of needing a light on top (for that very reason, so they don't need lights), and it's OK with you that those same power lines snag air traffic every year because they don't have lights,
Just as long as it's not in YOUR back yard...



> I'd much rather see a just few efficient nat gas / coal / nuke / hydro power plants, than whole country sides full of those ugly turbines. That's some serous visual pollution.


Again, it boils down to NIMBY for you...
And you can't understand the difference between renewables (hydro) and fossil fuels...

-------------

Now, let me lay some knowledge on you.

Why do you think public schools are often built under power lines or in the wind/fall out area of fossil fuel power plants?
It's lead, chromium, arsenic, mercury and other heavy metals that collect from the power plant releases.
The land is so contaminated no developer wants the lawsuits when people find out, so it's donated to school districts where kids will be concentrated.

It's about cancer, tumor & mental illness studies showing young, growing brains exposed to high EM (Electro Magnetic) and RF (Radio Frequancy) from power lines, particularly interesting power lines, can change/alter/damage a devloping brain.
And that doesn't take into consideration the concentration of heavy metals/toxins when that same school is located 'Down Wind' of a smoke stack of a fossil fuel plant...
Intersecting power lines can happen anywhere, even in cities.

Decentralized power grids require renewables,
This leads to lower voltage on transmission lines, which lowers EM/RF and reduces the amounts of pollutants pumped out by fossil fuel plants, and less pollutants means less contaminated ground.

When YOU can't, or YOU won't connect the dots, it becomes political dogma.
There are WAY too many people getting PAID to resist decentralized power grid, who exactly have the money to PAY for disinformation with a dog in the fight?
What's the motive? Who has the money to pump out, and who benefits from the false information, resistance to decentralized power?

This really is a 'No Brainer' which is why I can't understand why brains lock up and go into dogma mode when the subject comes up...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany

"Germany has been called "the world's first major renewable energy economy".[1][2] Renewable energy in Germany is mainly based on wind, solar and biomass. Germany had the world's largest photovoltaic installed capacity until 2014, and as of 2016, it is third with 40 GW. It is also the world's third country by installed wind power capacity, at 50 GW, and second for offshore wind, with over 4 GW."


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/renewa...-65-percent-of-germanys-electricity-last-week

"Renewable energy sources supplied nearly 65 percent of Germany’s electricity last week, with wind turbines alone responsible for 48.4 percent of power production nationwide, Clean Energy Wire reported. As a result, fossil fuel plants ran at a minimum output and nuclear facilities were shut down at night.

“These figures show that the envisaged goal [of the German government] of 65 percent renewables by 2030 is technically feasible,” Bruno Burger, a researcher with the solar research institute Fraunhofer ISE, said in a statement."


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I said wind and solar won't reduce the need for conventionally fueled plants as backup.
> It's all still there to read.


 And we have shown you that that is not true .
Remember the post about pumped storage?


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Danaus29 said:


> Natural gas is a fossil fuel. It's major use is electricity, major but just barely.
> https://geology.com/articles/natural-gas-uses/
> 
> My neighbor mows about 1/4 of an acre with a battery operated mower once a week. I don't have the solar conversion chart in front of me but I don't think it would take a week to recharge the battery. Maybe if you had half an acre or more of grass or use a riding mower the solar conversion wouldn't be as useful. But since grass is mowed usually in the summer when there is more daylight it should be a faster recharge than it would be in the depth of winter. Then again, if you can charge a battery array with a capacity large enough to run a whole house I would think that one single car size battery would be a piece of cake. Of course you could always set up a larger system to charge the additional batteries.


Batteries (or capacitors) are about charge density, and how easy it is to get power into the storage, and back out of the storage.

Lead acid batteries are 30% losses (average) right off the top.
15% converting electrical energy into chemical storage inside the battery,
15% converting that chemical energy back into electrical energy.

Lead acid batteries are good for a big shot of current right away, but taper off quickly.
That initial shot of energy is called a 'Surface Charge', where the battery has TIME to convert chemical energy into electrical energy.
Since it's a storage, the surface charge can build up with time.
(Ever give a car battery a 'Rest' and it cranks the engine again?)

Discharge a common lead acid battery below about 20% of capacity and you WILL damage that battery.
Some lead acid batteries are specifically designed to minimize the damage, but minimal damage is still damage and it accumulates.

The metal based batteries return MUCH more of the power you put into them, and sustain much less damage when discharged deeply.
Metal batteries can be 80% discharged regularly without significant damage, so that's an automatic 4x increase in USABLE power.

The power from a metal battery 'Ramps Up', there is a 'Lag Time' getting to full power output.
This ramp up time is insignificant when we are talking electric cars, lawn mowers, etc, but some 'Instant On' devices like computer circuits don't like it, which is why they are paired with capacitors to hold 'Instant' power, and why gas engine manufacturers don't care to use them for gas engine starter motors (and the fact common lead acid starting batteries need replaced every 5 years, cash in their pockets, 
While metal batteries might last 10-15 years without issues).

My home and business (off grid) solar powered system is my test bed. 
Not exactly 'Scientifically Controlled' environment...

What I see is a HUGE reduction in maintenance!
No watering like with lead acid!
Virtually no corrosion issues like with lead acid.
The weight reduction, which means less materials for racks & boxes, is about 15% (or less) of lead acid.
(Which is why a lawn mower is possible, weight reduction & charge density)
Since metal batteries don't produce explosive gasses, they are MUCH safer than lead acid batteries.

Since an inverter puts load on the batteries all the time, they are already 'Primed', they deliver energy to the inverter VERY well, and actually 'Lean Into' large loads.
For Electric Vehicles (cars) the lifespan is about 7 years,
In a PV array the lifespan has been 10-12 years, since they haven't been available to US residents much longer, common data isn't available with US usage patterns.

The life span alone, combined with safety & weight makes them attractive over lead acid, even though initial cost is more, they are more economical over the long run simply because of charge density and number of charge/discharge cycles they have in them.

We could also talk about super capacitors, which is a very new field and constantly getting better/more efficient, and DO NOT have a specific number of charge/discharge cycles in them.
Being solid state, they have the possibility of lasting like an old radio, 60 or 70 years before the seals fail and the capacitor materials corrode/fail...
That wasn't the topic of your post, batteries were...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> And we have shown you that that is not true .
> Remember the post about pumped storage?


Yes, that's the one about the hydroelectric plant that used it's own power to pump water at a net loss of energy?

It doesn't show what I said was untrue.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> "Renewable energy sources supplied nearly 65 percent of Germany’s electricity last week, with wind turbines alone responsible for 48.4 percent of power production nationwide, Clean Energy Wire reported. As a result,* fossil fuel plants ran at a minimum output* and nuclear facilities were shut down at night.


They still ran, and they still need them when the wind doesn't blow, which is what I said to begin with.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, that's the one about the hydroelectric plant that used it's own power to pump water at a net loss of energy?
> 
> It doesn't show what I said was untrue.


No No that wouldn’t be what it was .
It’s about a type of electric storage facility that uses water as the storage medium.
Energy excess to current needs is used to pump water into storage ,that water is released when power is needed through a Hydro electric generator.
that generator is usually also the pump .
It does not use its own power to pump water into storage .

What you said was the following ;
“ I said wind and solar won't reduce the need for conventionally fueled plants as backup.
It's all still there to read.“


I may have to spell this out in detail so let me explain ;
by using solar energy to charge a pumped storage unit electricity can be available at any time. 
Pumped storage may be fueled by any form of energy But it pairs well with renewable energy


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

painterswife said:


> https://e360.yale.edu/digest/renewa...-65-percent-of-germanys-electricity-last-week
> 
> "Renewable energy sources supplied nearly 65 percent of Germany’s electricity last week, with wind turbines alone responsible for 48.4 percent of power production nationwide, Clean Energy Wire reported. As a result, fossil fuel plants ran at a minimum output and nuclear facilities were shut down at night.
> 
> “These figures show that the envisaged goal [of the German government] of 65 percent renewables by 2030 is technically feasible,” Bruno Burger, a researcher with the solar research institute Fraunhofer ISE, said in a statement."


Science deniers, along with people duped by political propaganda simply will not acknowledge what's going on in other countries, 
They aren't aware of what's going on in their own country.

Renewables do work, they work pretty well considering the 'Fuel' is natural, so it's not concentrated, but it also doesn't have to be drilled, mined, pumped, transported, and produces no waste from the conversion process, so no waste to deal with.

Like I said before, I consider sunlight and wind 'Produce', just like crops.
I simply 'Farm' sunlight, and to a much lesser degree, wind.
The 'Fuel' is free, non-polluting, so it doesn't toxify air, soil or water, and my last day stays sustainable.

Every rooftop with more or less southern exposure has potential to be 'Farmed'.
Considering the southern roof top heats up more in summer, requiring more air conditioning, just the shading solar panels provide is a reduction in energy used... 
And that's before the production it provides.

There is a reason decentralized (local) power grids will sometimes lease your roof, pay you to put solar panels up on your buildings. If solar didn't work, or it's wasn't efficient enough to make a profit, these companies wouldn't exist.
This is what the deniers/dogma guys can't/won't understand, it's an education thing.

I don't care if the technology is pre-historic (levers & fulcrums) or cutting edge (super capacitors), if it fits the application, I'm using it.
I'm the guy that farms with a 1938 tractor, and uses super capacitors for energy storage, while practicing pre-historic composting for fertilizers...
I don't produce large scale GMO crops on land sucked dry, so I don't have to use chemical fertilizer, I produce 'Heritage' crops with full flavor, taste & proper consistency.
It's about the goals...

When power production isn't SUBJECTIVE to 'Personal Beliefs',
But OBJECTIVE, that objective to produce power locally to cut down on transmission lines & fossil fuel thermal/transmission losses,
Parking some solar panels on roof tops, in unused vacant lots, in weed fields, ect.
Some wind turbines in the middle of corn & bean fields since the foot print is so small they don't really cut into food production...

It's simply 'Farming' natural resources instead of drilling/digging up fossil fuels and releasing carbon the planet spent 3.5 billion years sequestering so humans could thrive.
Some of these people can't understand 'Balance' or natural laws.
The price paid for everything 8 billion humans do, the scale is WAY too big for many to comprehend.

I don't care for a split second what some 'Friends Of Coal' person says, particularly since they have seemingly befriended a mineral (like being a friend to a pet rock).
Even the idea of being 'A Friend' of trees, the planet was co-opted and corrupted by big energy for the 'Friends Of Coal' campaign...

It's a propaganda campaign, pure & simple.
The guys with the money FROM fossil fuels want you paying, the higher the price & taxes the better they like it.
On the other hand there is science, and science doesn't have publicity companies producing multi-million dollar commercials lying about fossil fuels being 'Clean' and buying millions every quarter to air those ads on TV/radio/pay pundts to bash renewables endlessly.

Environmental groups can't get licence plates issued that contribute to fossil fuel supporting political candidates.
This is because big business has bought & paid for our government.

The largest group, the group in the middle may or may not give lip service to environmental issues, but they aren't going to give up being addicted to plastics, driving big SUVs, trying to aquire wasteful 'McMansion' homes, etc.
They are WAY too concerned with 'Self Image' to aquire a credible education in anything, which is why the vast majority of 'Service' job paychecks go to pay bills for stuff they don't actually NEED, always thinking about bigger & flashy for 'Ego Entertainment' instead of what's actually needed for the application.

It's a choice, some of choose to do clean & sustainable rather than dirty and basically useless.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> No No that wouldn’t be what it was .


That was what was in the link you posted.



AmericanStand said:


> It does not use its own power to pump water into storage .


The example you showed used power created at "non-peak" times from all sources near enough to use. 

It only works where there is a hydro electric system in place.
Otherwise you are simply moving water for no reason.

This is your link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity

It takes more energy than it creates:


> Although *the losses of the pumping process* *makes the plant a net consumer of energy overall*, the system increases revenue by selling more electricity during periods of _peak demand_, when electricity prices are highest.


It doesn't eliminate the need for conventionally fueled generators.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Here is a community in Canada that stores excess solar for use in the winter.
> 
> https://www.dlsc.ca/


It's relatively easy to store heat.



> *DLSC Highlights*
> 
> The largest subdivision of R-2000 single family homes in Canada, each *30% more efficient than conventionally built homes.*
> A first in the world, with over 90% of residential space heating needs being met by solar thermal energy.
> ...


All we have to do is tear down every existing house and rebuild them to these super efficient standards to make it work.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

More on "pumped storage":



> The relatively low energy density of pumped storage systems requires either large flows and/or large differences in height between reservoirs.
> *
> The only way to store a significant amount of energy is by having a large body of water located relatively near, but as high above as possible, a second body of water*.





> These systems may be economical because they flatten out load variations on the power grid, *permitting thermal power stations such as coal-fired plants and nuclear power plants that provide base-load electricity to continue operating at peak efficiency*, while reducing the need for "peaking" power plants that use the same fuels as many base-load thermal plants, gas and oil, but have been designed for flexibility rather than maximal efficiency.
> 
> *Hence pumped storage systems are crucial when coordinating large groups of heterogeneous generators*.
> 
> *Capital costs for pumped-storage plants are relatively high*, although this is somewhat mitigated by their long service life of up to 75 years or more, which is three to five times longer than utility-scale batteries.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That was what was in the link you posted.
> 
> 
> The example you showed used power created at "non-peak" times from all sources near enough to use.
> ...


 OK by the paragraph
No that was what was not in the link I provided you misscharacterized the entire link. 
Second paragraph I don’t believe I showed a single example I provided a 
link to an explanation of the system 
Third paragraph part of the system is generating power from water. 
Fourth paragraph no comment
Fifth paragraph pump storage is a storage system it does not create any energy at all .

Sixth paragraph and the real key here 
pumped storage in combination with renewable generation alloows for continuous loadbearing .
the energy from the renewable resources is made available at any time and thus it can completely replace conventionally fueled generation.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It doesn't eliminate the need for conventionally fueled generators.


 I’d like to point out that this is exactly what pumped storage does .
It eliminates the need for conventionally fuel generators ,it’s what they’re doing now already instead of building more fossil fuel plants and it is done by fossil fuel generators themselves because of the economics .
It is actually current technology in use on mass industrial scale already it is the largest form of grid energy storage in the United States. 

From the Wikipedia ,

“Pumped storage is the largest-capacity form of grid energy storage available, and, as of 2017, the United States Department of Energy Global Energy Storage Database reports that PSH accounts for over 95% of all active tracked storage installations worldwide, “


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They still ran, and they still need them when the wind doesn't blow, which is what I said to begin with.


That was the statement I found the most fascinating because it is true about needing them when the wind doesn't blow.
When does the earth stop turning and the sun stop burning?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> That is a conclusion made from factual evidence there is no copy and paste.
> Which part of it Do you dispute??


All of it that can't be verified.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> That was the statement I found the most fascinating because* it is true about needing them when the wind doesn't blow*.
> When does the earth stop turning and the sun stop burning?


That was answered the first time you brought it up.

The fact the wind is blowing "somewhere" means nothing if it's not blowing exactly where you need it to be or if it's not blowing fast enough. (Or too fast).

At least you've finally admitted what I *really* said was factual though.

There are many places where there's not enough wind to generate sufficient, continuous power. 

Most of Germany right now is well under 10 MPH
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=35.32;-78.57;8&l=temperature-2m


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> All of it that can't be verified.


 What do you mean? Solar and wind power is currently stored in pumped storage. That’s a fact Jack 
It’s a reasonable conclusion that if you add generating capacity in one form it can replace generating capacity did another form 
Or do you Dispute those two statements?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> What do you mean?


All of it that can't be verified.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> You know what I think I have explained things on the level that anyone can understand , it seems to be *only you are disputing the obvious *so I think there’s no point in responding to you however if anyone else is unclear I would be glad to continue a conversation with them


I'm copying and pasting facts from your own source.

The "obvious" is that wind and solar aren't capable of providing all the power needs without backup, because they are "intermittent". 

That backup will be conventionally powered generators, just as it is now and always has been.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That was answered the first time you brought it up.
> 
> The fact the wind is blowing "somewhere" means nothing if it's not blowing exactly where you need it to be or if it's not blowing fast enough. (Or too fast).
> 
> ...


What altitude did you check that at, 10 meters or 100?

http://drømstørre.dk/wp-content/wind/miller/windpower web/en/tour/wres/calculat.htm


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Kudos to moderators for keeping the political insults out of this conversation!

While I understand there will be differences in opinion, there isn't any reason to start name calling, last resort of someone that's run out of ideas.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> What altitude did you check that at, 10 meters or 100?


There's not enough difference between the two for it to matter.
https://www.ventusky.com/


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

JeepHammer, thank you for the education in batteries. I admit I'm not all that knowledgeable about them and their capacities. 
I often wonder why, if a battery for power tools can be charged using electricity, can't it also be charged with solar power? Solar panels can be hooked up to battery bank storage. Isn't it just a simple step to use the solar array to charge the power tool batteries?


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Danaus29 said:


> JeepHammer, thank you for the education in batteries. I admit I'm not all that knowledgeable about them and their capacities.
> I often wonder why, if a battery for power tools can be charged using electricity, can't it also be charged with solar power? Solar panels can be hooked up to battery bank storage. Isn't it just a simple step to use the solar array to charge the power tool batteries?


It just depends on the output of the solar panel and/or charger.
If the solar panel is comparable with with the battery and won't overcharge the battery, it's a direct connection.

If the panel(s) can overcharge the battery, it's a $20 to $60 charge controller so the battery doesn't get overcharged.
Think battery charger, but instead of plugging into the wall, it plugs into the solar, hydro, wind or whatever your RE source is.

99.9% of my solar either goes into batteries or it powers the inverter directly.
The inverter throws 110vac/220vac, just like everyone else's home current, simply because every home appliance is made for 'Normal' home current.
No strange plugs, no doubled or tripled wiring runs, just like everyone else's home that's on grid.

I started with common 12 volt DC batteries, so I kept the amount of panels to a minimum at first so I didn't have to use charge controllers, but as power needs got larger, I added more panels (and more batteries) to feed the inverter.
Since I didn't want to monitor the charging all the time, I added charge controllers.

Since I built, and I maintain my system, it's modular, every component is stand alone, so they can all be replaced/upgraded at will.
Most of the new inverters have charge controllers and all the other stuff built in, and if you are into minimum install with maximum results, that's the way to go,
But if anything goes wrong, the entire inverter has to go in for service, and that can leave you without power until it's replaced or returned.

It's not difficult, but can get a little messy unless you have a little help...
I started with basics, like how to make battery cables that will live with the most basic battery (lead acid) and people argued.
20+ years of living with lead acid batteries and their issues, the faults and cost of 'Cheap' cables spelled out, with pictures, and they still wanted to argue...
To each their own, and good luck with it...


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

@JeepHammer quick question. I built a few underground houses in my day but never lived in them. How is it for mold and leaks? How about earthquake tremors? I have heard that underground house occupants can "feel them" even when the Richter Scale doesn't. 

I know they are the bomb for cooling though. The first one I built we poured the concrete on the roof on Friday. It went through a heat while drying over the weekend of course. On Monday it as a cool 68 in there in August in Texas. A week later if was even less as the concrete had cured 90%.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

mreynolds said:


> @JeepHammer quick question. I built a few underground houses in my day but never lived in them. How is it for mold and leaks? How about earthquake tremors? I have heard that underground house occupants can "feel them" even when the Richter Scale doesn't.
> 
> I know they are the bomb for cooling though. The first one I built we poured the concrete on the roof on Friday. It went through a heat while drying over the weekend of course. On Monday it as a cool 68 in there in August in Texas. A week later if was even less as the concrete had cured 90%.


Lessions I learned from the root cellar, then two 8'x40' cool storage rooms...
One is rebar rusts, and when (not if) it rusts, it cracks the concrete.
Most people think this is backwards, the concrete cracks then the rebar rusts, but that's not the way it happens.

Fiberglass reinforcement or the little helix stainless steel pieces are enough if you aren't expecting bombs or intend to park a 100,000 pound truck on top your house.
They don't crack your concrete.

The second thing is the difference between 'Wet' & 'Dry' concrete.
'Wet' concrete takes months to years to dry, and it will 'Sweat' inside.
'Dry' concrete cures in a couple months and stays dry as it continues to cure.
It took about six months for me to get windows, finish the interior in my home, and the concrete super dry by then and hasn't sweat internally.

The third big deal is forms.
Like a bunch of guys, I started with shipping containers (already here when I bought the land).
I just used them for the inside form, but initially spent WAY too much on outside forms.
As I expanded from one construction project to another, I learned to only dig the hole wide enough for the insulation & water barrier, and poured the concrete up against dirt when I could.
That SIGNIFICANTLY reduced the cost of forms.

The foundation is everything.
French drains to lower and divert the water table below your construction.
Water only leaks in when in when it stands, so diversion around and under the construction.
This is WAY easier than it sounds, it's simply gravel and drain pipes large enough to handle the biggest rain you get (saturated ground).
If you don't have gravity for drainage, you have to do earth sheltered, above ground level and back filled over.

The house was 'Cheating', since it's MUCH bigger than a shipping container, I used air bags and sand bags for inside forms, gravity and a LOT of shoveling/taking on the outside.
The best part of that was no square corners. 
Square corners and compressed concrete construction don't get along, so radius instead of square corners where a crack is most likely to get started.

The no square corners & the center support/chimney were ideas from an engineer that teaches concrete construction engineering at Perdue.
The center support/chimney allows for a fully open 'Great Room' and my big wood burning kitchen stove that's our last ditch heat.

My wife said she felt a 4-something earthquake (the biggest we ever saw around here) and I'm glad the center support was there.
For water sealing, we used basement sealer on the cement, then insulation stuck to that, then another layer of basement insulation and rubberized sealer sheet.
Here is a hint, the PVC/rubber is HEAVY! It seals up well at seams, but it weighs a TON.

Think a loaf of homemade bread with the long side cut out and facing south.
The south side is windows, south for passive solar and a CRAP load of light.
We added a 'Green Room' to further take advantage of passive solar, so 'Heat' costs about $200 in propane a winter, mostly because my wife takes long hot baths in winter and the water heater is propane.
We cook at home more in winter too, and the range is gas.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Concrete rebar made from composite materials are now available at very close to the same cost as metal. Lots of advantages.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's not enough difference between the two for it to matter.
> https://www.ventusky.com/


LOL.
The answer is "I just took the wind numbers off the page at 10 meters and the temperature at 2 meters because I didn't think it made any difference."
No need to go into the physics of it all then.
For those that DO like to learn new things, the info is out there as well as in the links on this thread.
Turbines can spin with wind speeds of 7 - 9 mph and stay spinning during fluctuations that drop below that.
One of the laws of physics is inertia. 
It's true that geography and topography make a difference in whether it works well, that's why they pay to study the sites before building them. 
But back to physics - the higher you go, generally speaking (see above) the wind speed increases AND the *power* of that wind increases exponentially because there is more of it and less resistance. Those of you that know about gear and tire sizes and how it affects speed know what I'm talking about. 
I found out as a kid when I changed to a taller tire and got a speeding ticket, lol.

Finally, for those that don't know and don't care to know anything, just look up at the sky today. Pick out a cloud and watch it. Is it staying stationary or moving? Is it the same cloud that was there yesterday?
Good.
That pretty much ends the discussion of "when does the wind *stop blowing*". 
We found out centuries ago that the wind doesn't "blow", the earth spins and gives the illusion that the earth is still and the atmosphere moves. It's actually the other way around.
When the earth stops spinning, the wind won't "blow".

In advanced classes you'll learn how *temperature* affects that basic constant wind speed due to the sun's heating.
That's where you'll learn that as long as the sun shines the wind won't stop either.

Class dismissed.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Good stuff there, @JeepHammer


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> LOL.
> The answer is "I just took the wind numbers off the page at 10 meters and the temperature at 2 meters because I didn't think it made any difference."


The *wind velocities* at 10 meters and 100 meters were nearly identical.
You didn't mention temperatures until now, and I never mentioned them at all.

This is what I said:


> There are many places where there's not enough *wind* to generate sufficient, continuous power.
> Most of Germany right now is well under 10 *MPH*





farmrbrown said:


> What altitude did you check that at, 10 meters or 100?


Currently in Minsk, there is a 1 *MPH* difference between 10 meter and 100 meter wind *velocities*.
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=51.5;19.3;5&l=wind-10m



farmrbrown said:


> In advanced classes you'll learn how temperature affects that basic constant wind speed due to the sun's heating.
> That's where you'll learn that as long as the sun shines the wind won't stop either.
> 
> Class dismissed.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

JeepHammer said:


> Lessions I learned from the root cellar, then two 8'x40' cool storage rooms...
> One is rebar rusts, and when (not if) it rusts, it cracks the concrete.
> Most people think this is backwards, the concrete cracks then the rebar rusts, but that's not the way it happens.
> 
> ...


The first one I built the owner was the engineer/architect. But he was licensed in neither. It was block wall with membrane. Several layers. I told him to add the French drain. It was in the side of the hill so the drain worked nicely. Then we poured the top with concrete and covered with dirt. We also lead lined everything because he was afraid the Russians would nuke his little town. His town was so small it had one church. The Baptist and Methodist took turns every other Sunday for service. But he was sure they were one of the first targets. 

The other one was house of the year for home and gardens magazine maybe around '89 or so. (I built mine in '89 anyway) I didn't build the original but a copy. It was three levels. One underground, one ground level with earth berm and the one under roof. It had the best view as the entire South roof was glass from the ridge to the ground. It had a metal curtain that would close if the temperature got above a certain level. During the whole project I questioned the use of this type of roof on Texas. The original home was built in Minnesota I think. But the guy still lives in it thirty years later. I'm good friends with his neighbor and see him out there at times. 

Good idea on the curved corners. If there ever was mold it makes it easier to clean. Just got through building a pharmacy in a hospital and they have to be that way and for that very reason. At least in the compounding rooms.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Rounded, or compound angles, say two 45° or three 30° angles instead of one 90° angle makes that joint MUCH stronger.
On the down side, it's a pain in the butt to tile or cover the raw concrete.

We used a 'Dry' concrete, it's got an epoxy added, for the home.
You need a hammer drill to hang a picture or attach anything to the walls, floors or ceiling!

I can't stress enough about the drains UNDER, and around the construction!
My first was a root cellar, which needs a natural floor.
Root cellars need 85%-95% relative humidity, so no concrete floors!
The river rock is sitting on dirt in mine, with big drains at floor level.
If water stand in the rock, that's OK, I just don't want to walk in water, so there isn't 'French' drains under the root cellar, just rock stopping grates in drain tubes at floor level.

When the cool/dry storage was built, I didn't want the moisture, so 18" of French drains/rock.
There is also gravel around the side walls so water can fall to the French drains before it stands against walls.
We have had serious rains, complete ground saturation, but diverting and draining off the water table has worked so far, and that's the model I built the home on.

The cool storage was unconventional footers, I had shipping containers for inside forms, so instead of pouring long/straight barrier footers, I dug pillars.
With just 'Posts' sticking up it as easy to dig between them and back filled with drain pipes and gravel.
When the containers were set, that's when I insulated on the outside, including using posts inside the container for roof support, and fitted styrofoam panels on the roof.
Styrofoam spreads weight load out VERY effectively!
Then I dug the wall foundations & wall space out and poured walls.
Once walls were in place, then I poured a roof cap slab.

Once that was done, it was back-hoe time again, making space for gravel around the concrete and having room to spray/swab sealer on everything.
Rock goes in around sides, and everything gets back filled.
Once that slab hardens, you take the braces out inside, what weight of the slab hits the roof gets diffused by the insulating styrofoam, but most of the slab is supported by walls.

By digging the hole larger as I went along, I could use the dirt walls as outside forms.
This would be a real pain for guys wanting to go several feet underground, since a back hoe boom is only so long,
But by removing some of the hill top around my site, and backfilling after, it seriously reduce the cost of forms and digging was something I could do myself reducing costs.

Invest in mold/form release agent ('Grease') and use it LIBERALLY!
The root cellar still has the plywood I used for forms stuck to it, I couldn't get it off...
Recycling forms seriously reduces costs.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Rounded corners in concrete, a man cave dream! 
Clean everything with a pressure washer! 

Do they make a pressure washer with a Hemi?


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Farmer brown,
You are correct about wind speeds. It doesn't take a lot to get them spinning, and to control speed they simply change the pitch of the blades to make the blade LESS efficient when wind speeds increase beyond what's needed.
The blade 'Bleeds Off' (stalls) excess wind energy.

These blades rely on lift, so it's an entirely different game than the old flat blade windmills that rely on force (think old well pump windmills) to produce useable power.
The 'Blade' isn't really a 'Blade', it's actually an air foil, so you simply adjust the angle of attack to produce stall to slow the blades to optimum speed.
Ever notice that little weather station sticking up on the back of the generator housing?
It only takes a very basic computer controller to adjust the angle of attack on the 'Blade' for optimum shaft speed.

While there are some that think they are ugly, I think they are elegant in design & function.
Bernoulli's Principal works in any blade/wing orientation, but people that slept/stoned/drunk through basic science classes are at a complete loss...
What a way to waste 6th grade science classes


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The *wind velocities* at 10 meters and 100 meters were nearly identical.
> You didn't mention temperatures until now, and I never mentioned them at all.
> 
> This is what I said:
> ...



Yes, *I* mentioned it because the link provided started out at 2 meters and was showing temperatures. When I clicked on wind speed, it started at 10 meters and allowed you to change it to higher altitudes. I chose 100 meters because that's the average height of a commercial wind turbine. And of course altitude above sea level affects all wind factors as well.

But velocity alone doesn't determine efficiency which is what was questioned. The farther above ground, the more likely the wind won't encounter man made or natural objects to interfere with wind speed or cause turbulence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_gradient


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

JeepHammer said:


> Farmer brown,
> You are correct about wind speeds. It doesn't take a lot to get them spinning, and to control speed they simply change the pitch of the blades to make the blade LESS efficient when wind speeds increase beyond what's needed.
> The blade 'Bleeds Off' (stalls) excess wind energy.
> 
> ...


Bernoulli?
Was that the guy that Spicoli got his pizza from?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I chose 100 meters because t*hat's the average height of a commercial wind turbine*.


Not according to this source:



> Average wind speeds are often available from meteorological observations measured at a height of 10 metres. Hub heights of modern 600 to 1,500 kW wind turbines are *usually 40 to 80 metres*, however.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

BFF those are two slightly different things ,the height overall and the height to the center of the blades. 

The averages maybe changing since it seems to be that larger and larger windmills are being erected.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

I thought he invented the epilady for those hairy southern European women 

--------------

Air density (temp & altitude) and wind speed, along with the swept surface area, of the rotor determine the torque created.
When someone says they can't determine if it's a lift blade or force blade, I tell them to look for an air foil (wing shape) on the end 2/3.
If the root of the blade is mostly round (see big generators) and the end 2/3 is an air foil it's a lift blade,
If it's mostly flat, or simple curve it's a force blade.

I entirely suck at the math required for an air foil blade...
It's foam and rayon material with fiberglass resin when I try them, and I don't have a wind tunnel or smoke chamber to see the airflow, so it's entirely hit & miss (a LOT of misses) when I tried them.
I'm back to a blade made of flat aluminum I shaped myself for the little wind test generator, but that doesn't mean I don't try to keep up with the principles of big turbines...

The air foil on the ends of the blade provide lift, and at the ends of that long blade, they provide a ton of torque, like a long wrench on a stubborn bolt, it's leverage.
That's where I screwed up, not enough length to provide torque for compound gearing to speed up the generator.
Big wind turbines can do that, but I simply can't get enough tower & blade length to make mine effective. I'm in the 'Hills & Hollars' of the river bottoms, so laminar (straight line) air flow to do an effective job on my crappy blades.

There is a reason I concentrated on solar PV, my math/science skills aren't up to snuff, and my resources are limited when it comes to having money for a tower tall enough to reach laminar airflow.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Can you increase the number of blades ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

As you increase the number of blades you may move into the realm of a force type windmill but you will increase torque

Of course there may not be sufficient energy in the swept area to create enough torque for what you want to do


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

The 3 blades (odd number) is a balance thing, no dead weight hanging to overcome.
3 blades is the least amount of turbulence between blades in the air column.

Small scale uses force blades most times, and a lot of blades, but usually an odd number, again to overcome the dead weight (gravity) resistance.
The turbulence created is fierce. I never overcame this and it took a couple years of research to find out where I screwed up...

It's that experience thing again, some people think it's a waste of time & money, but you pay for any education, and hard learned lessons are the ones you remember best.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I thought two blades were more efficient and cost less disturbance in the wind flow ? The reason they were not used at windmills 
Ore often was because of vibrational resonance interference with the mast ?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not according to this source:


Yep, but they're getting bigger as we speak.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/3/8/17084158/wind-turbine-power-energy-blades
That doesn't change the facts of physics though and measuring wind speed at ground level doesn't accurately reflect how efficient the turbine will be.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> That doesn't change the facts of physics though and measuring *wind speed at ground level* doesn't accurately reflect *how efficient* the turbine will be.


I never used those terms.

It also doesn't change the fact the wind doesn't always blow where the turbines are.
They are an "intermittent" power source.
There's no point in repeating it all again.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Two blades, or any even number have harmonic issues (vibration).
It's a push/pull thing, the 'Up' side blade gets pushed on harder (cleaner air) than the 'Down' side blade.
3 blades minimize those issues, like the tower creating a compression wave behind the 'Down' side blade, the other two blades are in higher power producing parts of the cycle, which offsets the lower power 3rd of the circle.

You guys either know this stuff, are you are sharp enough to ask the correct questions.
It's either the deniers around here, or it's people saying "Build me THAT" and don't want to know anything about it.

Farmer Brown,
That's correct, you have to get out up and out of the 'Boundary Layer' the slower and turbulence ladened layer next to the ground surface and up into faster air.
30' to 60' depending on the terrain & surface growth.
That's 30' to 60' above tree tops before you get above the turbulence producing obstacles.

From talking to professionals and research, it's all about the tower, get as much tower as is practical.
Every (reliable) source says the same thing, as much tower as you can afford for small scale, and as rigid as possible so the turbine doesn't 'Whip' at the top of a flimsy pole.

Have you guys seen the the inflatable turbines secured by cables?
The issue I have with them is lighter than air gasses, since no fabric will hold a lighter than air gas indefinitely, you would have to refill the 'Bag' part of those turbines,
And let's not forget cable sweep when wind changes direction, since it's on a cable it's going to swing around a central anchor point.
Storms seem like a threat to a balloon too.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I think the world needs two kinds of people doers and over thinkers
Sometimes were both the same person !

It’s also very interesting when somebody spends an hour or so explaining to you exactly why something cannot be done and then walks out the door with you to see how you did it 

In the truck moving industry there is a certain piece of equipment that the experts have said for many years cannot be billet at the weight of less than 6500 pounds. 
They also say that undercurrent industry regulations they will never be able to move trucks within the legal weight restrictions .
Sometimes those same people continue saying that even after having seen mine that weighs only 1500 pounds and gets everything legal. 
Some still argue the earth is flat what can you do ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I never used those terms.
> 
> It also doesn't change the fact the wind doesn't always blow where the turbines are.
> They are an "intermittent" power source.
> There's no point in repeating it all again.


You keep bringing up the word intermittent like that somehow End all discussion a renewable resources. 
Why ?
I don’t think most people see that as the deal killer in the discussion .
Do you? If you do why ?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I never used those terms.


Of course not. I'm the one that pointed it out when I clicked your link, which was a pretty cool site BTW.
Nonetheless, if you're going to enter a discussion on wind power and claim that 'such and such' won't work because of wind speeds, then it shouldn't be a surprise to learn there's more to it than that.



> It also doesn't change the fact the wind doesn't always blow where the turbines are.
> They are an "intermittent" power source.
> There's no point in repeating it all again.


No there really isn't.
The earth's rotation and the sun's fusion of hydrogen is anything but "intermittent"
If there's a good source of wind, the turbines will produce. They are going up all over the place and producing power for states like Texas.
If the area is poor for wind, then no one will build them there.


*The five states with the most wind capacity installed at the start of 2017 were:*

Texas (20,321 MW)
Iowa (6,917 MW)
Oklahoma (6,645 MW)
California (5,662 MW)
Kansas (4,451 MW)
*Wind power in the United States - Wikipedia*

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Wind_power_in_the_United_States


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

We drive past the San Gorgonio Pass wind farm on the way to Vegas occasionally (when we take the back way) and it always seems like at least half those turbines aren't working. They really seem to break a lot, can't be cheap to fix either.

Anecdotal and not saying it means anything, but you can't help but notice the large amount of broken/non-moving ones.

There's also been a lot of uproar by the locals in that area about the environment, noise, uglification of the masses of solar panels/turbines. I think San Bernardino County recently put a ban on new development of large solar/wind farms because the desert is just being filled with them. The turbines particularly, I don't know how many of you have every heard the noise from a wind farm but it is loud, obnoxious and a little scary sounding and the sounds travel quite a ways in the desert. I wouldn't want to live near one, driving past them is bad enough on my ears.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

If they think that’s ugly they’ve never lived down wind of a coal fire power plant


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

If you want ugly, have a look at any trac row housing or McMansion subdivision.

You don't put a hydro dam where there isn't a river, you don't put a windmill where there is not an average wind speed to sustain them.
It would be like putting solar panels in a basement...

The phrase 'Cutting off your nose to spite your face' comes to mind.
The same thing comes to mind when people argue for/against options they don't understand.

It's what works where you are, without building a crap ton of fuel, waste, transportation pathways for fuel/waste, etc.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> If the area is poor for wind, then no one will build them there.


Most areas are "poor for wind".
All areas have times when the wind doesn't blow fast enough.
It makes no difference if it's blowing somewhere else.



> For the twelve months through November 2017, 254.2 terawatt-hours were generated by wind power, or *6.33% *of all generated electrical energy.[2]


https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/...arm system in the Central US_1.pdf?sequence=6
"The current electrical system requires an essentially instantaneous balance of supply and demand dictated largely by the latter. Opportunities for storage of electricity when supply exceeds demand are limited, while options to modulate demand are also minimal. Base load demand is accommodated in the present system mainly by a combination of contributions from nuclear and coal with an additional contribution in some regions of the country from hydro. Gas-fired systems provide the fast response required to adjust to short and intermediate-term fluctuations in demand. The challenge posed by the need to incorporate a significant source from wind relates to the *intrinsic variability* of this source. 

*Production of electricity from an individual wind farm can vary over a wide range on time scales as brief as minutes or as extensive as days or even longer *"


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Most areas are "poor for wind".
> All areas have times when the wind doesn't blow fast enough.
> It makes no difference if it's blowing somewhere else.


That's simply not true. Citing what is being produced NOW has no relevance on future capacity and production.
It's like saying, "The automobile isn't practical" in 1900 because MOST people didn't have cars and were using horses.
You're comparing apples with corn dogs, not even close.


> https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/10981611/Meteorologically defined limits to reduction in the variability of outputs from a coupled wind farm system in the Central US_1.pdf?sequence=6
> "The current electrical system requires an essentially instantaneous balance of supply and demand dictated largely by the latter. Opportunities for storage of electricity when supply exceeds demand are limited, while options to modulate demand are also minimal. Base load demand is accommodated in the present system mainly by a combination of contributions from nuclear and coal with an additional contribution in some regions of the country from hydro. Gas-fired systems provide the fast response required to adjust to short and intermediate-term fluctuations in demand. The challenge posed by the need to incorporate a significant source from wind relates to the *intrinsic variability* of this source.
> 
> *Production of electricity from an individual wind farm can vary over a wide range on time scales as brief as minutes or as extensive as days or even longer *"


Same thing again. 
We didn't have gasoline storage capacity in 1900 either. But citing that fact has no relevancy on whether it can, will, or did occur.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> That's simply not true.


It is according to every credible source I've seen.



> *Intermittent electricity*
> [1]
> *Intermittent electricity* is electrical energy that is *not continuously available* due to external factors that cannot be controlled, produced by electricity generating sources that vary in their conditions on a fairly short time scale. Sources of intermittent electricity include solar power,[2]wind power,[3] tidal power, and wave power





> *Wind power*
> Wind power is considered highly intermittent and non-dispatchable because it is a variable power source, meaning that its electrical output depends on many factors, such as wind speed, air density, turbine characteristics, and more.





> Wind power is by far the primary energy source that most need high quality energy storage options.


https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Intermittent_electricity

"Future production" won't change the intermittent nature of the wind speeds at any given location. 



farmrbrown said:


> You're comparing *apples with corn dogs*, not even close.


No, I've only talked about wind speeds and the need for back up generation capabilities, and I've shown sources which verify those facts. 

The sources others (including yourself) have shown have also confirmed those facts.
Here are more.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/intermittent-energy-source


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It is according to every credible source I've seen.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have credible sources that the earth still spins and the sun still shines.
Fortunately, that's enough for most people.
Unfortunately, that won't convince everyone........
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Let’s talk for a moment about how intermittent the wind is. 
Can wind Play a useful part of the transportation structure?
It would seem obvious that it can since it has in the past.
So I guess the key point would be has any technology occurred to make it even more useful?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I have credible sources that the earth still spins and the sun still shines.


That has no relation to what I said.
We've been around this circle several times now.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That has no relation to what I said.
> We've been around this circle several times now.



Yes, I know.
If the 1st step of understanding how the wind works isn't accepted, that pretty much ends the conversation.
Expending any more resources in that area is obviously futile.
The only answer is for people to seek and continue to learn, and leave behind those who refuse to do so.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Let’s talk for a moment about how intermittent the wind is.
> Can wind Play a useful part of the transportation structure?
> It would seem obvious that it can since it has in the past.
> So I guess the key point would be has any technology occurred to make it even more useful?


Yep.
Fortunately Columbus knew how resourceful the wind was and left behind those who were convinced he was on a fool's errand.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

One of the links on this thread took me to an article that said electricity can be economically transmitted up to 4000 miles
In theory any electricity generated anywhere in the country could go to any other place in the country. 
Could we change the timing of solar by transmitting power across time zones ?
California 2 o’clock solar power could fuel the 6 o’clock New York peak. 
Is that done ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

A secondary thought on that ability to transmit electricity is that generation need not be geographically close to storage. 
For instance if the worlds largest open pit mine Near Salt Lake City is ever exhausted the salt water from the Salt Lake could be pumped up to it with power from Southern California and that stored power later returned to Southern Cali.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Shawnlee; Better buy your propane in the Summer. Friends who built propane-heated houses in the last century tell me that it is an expensive proposition now.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> A secondary thought on that ability to transmit electricity is that generation need not be geographically close to storage.
> For instance if the worlds largest open pit mine Near Salt Lake City is ever exhausted the salt water from the Salt Lake could be pumped up to it with power from Southern California and that stored power later returned to Southern Cali.





AmericanStand said:


> One of the links on this thread took me to an article that said electricity can be economically transmitted up to 4000 miles
> In theory any electricity generated anywhere in the country could go to any other place in the country.
> Could we change the timing of solar by transmitting power across time zones ?
> California 2 o’clock solar power could fuel the 6 o’clock New York peak.
> Is that done ?



Tesla thought so, but why listen to a crazy genius?


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

AmericanStand: I lived close to a pumpback station in OK. They pumped water up a cliff to a lake when power was plentiful during the day (generated by a hydroelectirc facility at a dam) and then let it back down thru a generator when power was at peak usage. A net loss of energy, but a net gain of income. In short, if you do not use hydroelectric power when you have it, it is gone forever. The pumpback station effectively "saves" some of that power. 

You DO have to have a suitable storage lake. The one I know about had a leak that fed a pretty sizeable creek. 

A fellow I knew got a job as a powder monkey helping a blaster when they were building that lake and pumpback. He was fresh from Korea and knew a little, not a lot, about blasting. His blaster was loading the holes with blasting agent (oil, fertilizer and a small chunk of dynamite). Filled almost to the top. This fellow thought that was a bit much, but he was new to the job and said nothing. However, when time came to set off the charges he did get under an earthmover about a quarter mile away. The blast threw rock all the way into the nearby little town. He and the blaster were both fired on his first day.

I ran into this fellow several years later; he'd bought a home over what had been a coal mine in the late l800's. The mine had fallen in and he'd had to jack up the back end of his home (frame home) and block it up so high that you could walk under the back of it. Subsidence was slow enough that he could keep up with it. Sort of like the homes in Houston that are slowly tilting seaward.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

That’s neat I didn’t realize some places flat as Oklahoma could do that.
It definitely helps break the stereotypes


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

JeepHammer said:


> Rounded, or compound angles, say two 45° or three 30° angles instead of one 90° angle makes that joint MUCH stronger.
> On the down side, it's a pain in the butt to tile or cover the raw concrete.
> 
> We used a 'Dry' concrete, it's got an epoxy added, for the home.
> ...


Back in the day of old timer construction we did multi story buildings like that. We would put plywood between the I-beams and brace it with 2x4's. Pour concrete over it and move them to the next floor. We sprayed kerosene on them so they would release from the concrete. I have done up to ten floors this way. It's a good way but slow. I think they still do it this way in Mexico and South America. 

I'm glad those days are over here though.


----------



## Composted (Aug 28, 2019)

10mph to 11mph is a net gain of 21% kinetic energy, nothing to sneeze at.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

What Tesla didn't understand was radiation, the power spread out, radiates in all directions, and Tesla believed the air itself would become the conductor if enough power was applied.
He did understand resistance which can be overcome with enough power, but he didn't understand capacitance (not his field of study and not well understood until the 1950s).

Tesla 'Believers' never have an education in electronics or it becomes clear very quickly without a conductor energy dissipates quite quickly.
Even with a conductor resistance & dissipation are a big issue.

While Tesla had a super grip on how the electro-magnetic link works, understood AC and conductors, he jumped the shark when he got out of his field.
Keep in mind we still use his generator designs, his motor designs, his transmission designs, his fusing designs, his bimetal breaker designs,
Without Tesla we would have a power station about every mile trying to use DC instead of AC, or it would have taken decades of small discoveries by different people instead of one man having the answers to every problem they ran into.

Tesla was an absloute genius when it came to the electro-magnetic link and using AC, which is MUCH easier to produce than DC.
With Westinghouse resources, he made the entire power grid possible decades sooner that it would have otherwise have been.
Also keep in mind his experiments advanced radio, and later TV possible since he invented the cycling controls needed for radio & TV.
Just a couple years ago Tesla finally got recognized for inventing cycling transmitters strong enough to cross the oceans, which were swiped and used by those you were taught 'Invented' radio.

The word 'Radio' comes from Tesla, which wrote extensively about the hemisphere of discharges around his generator terminals, he called it radial discharge, which he wrote 'Radio' discharges being an immigrant...
If radio would have been his field of study... Who knows, maybe we would have had voice radio in 1910 and TV in 1915...

https://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_whoradio.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_of_radio


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Composted said:


> 10mph to 11mph is a net *gain* of 21% kinetic energy, nothing to sneeze at.


That works in both directions.


----------



## Composted (Aug 28, 2019)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That works in both directions.


Your semantics are lame, it’s been pointed out quite a few times in this thread. I question your math/physics/classical mechanics.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Composted said:


> Your semantics are lame, it’s been pointed out quite a few times in this thread. I question your math/physics/classical mechanics.


Yet what I said remains 100% accurate.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Speed of a sneeze is about 100 mph.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Composted said:


> Your semantics are lame, it’s been pointed out quite a few times in this thread. I question your math/physics/classical mechanics.


Joining yesterday, you might want to reconsider the insults aimed at anyone, even though you didn't specify.

If you have a differing opinions, save the one line posts and make your point, with references if possible.
Be specific since general statements prove, disprove, nothing and usually serve to confuse issues even further.
It's also an indicator of the grasp you have on the subject, and an indicator of how well formed you can make an argument for/against whatever.

I hope this isn't some party line propaganda thing, "Hate all renewable energy" thing.
That never ends well when someone is incapable of absorbing actual scientifically proven information, particularly something that is up and running, actually works.
Nothing like hearing a flat earther swearing airplanes don't fly, there is no such thing as spacecraft, and if you walk far enough you will fall off the 'Earth Disk'...


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Is there a rule about that?


----------



## Composted (Aug 28, 2019)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Speed of a sneeze is about 100 mph.


Cute.


----------



## Composted (Aug 28, 2019)

JeepHammer said:


> Joining yesterday, you might want to reconsider the insults aimed at anyone, even though you didn't specify.
> 
> If you have a differing opinions, save the one line posts and make your point, with references if possible.
> Be specific since general statements prove, disprove, nothing and usually serve to confuse issues even further.
> It's also an indicator of the grasp you have on the subject, and an indicator of how well formed you can make an argument for/against whatever.



Thank you.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Is there a rule about that?


There has always been a rule about insulting people, although some members seem to get a pass quite often...


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

That wasn't the part of the diatribe to which I referred.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Let’s talk for a moment about how intermittent the wind is.
> Can wind Play a useful part of the transportation structure?
> It would seem obvious that it can since it has in the past.
> So I guess the key point would be has any technology occurred to make it even more useful?


That would be density of energy, reasonable, common wind doesn't have enough energy density to overcome mass/friction, and you can pretty well forget getting a load up a hill.

To grind grain, or produce a reasonable amount of electrical power, wind has to use mechanical gear reduction.

With a boat floating, it's like turbine blades on bearings, reducing friction.
No wind, no energy to move the boat.
Currents can easily overcome mild wind power with sail boat.
You do get lucky, little restriction on winds (no trees, hills, etc) so it's mostly clean air when it reaches the sails.
Since the energy density is so low, sail boats can easily have two or three times the surface area of the hull, which will move the boat.
The faster you want to move the boat, the more energy is needed, and you quickly reach the point where you simply can't get any more sail into clean air, so it's self limiting.

Wind CAN move heavy loads on land, you simply use a wind generator to charge batteries, concentrate the energy in batteries, and use batteries to pull tons of product up a mounting.
See Nicola trucks, a sister company to Tesla cars, it's the truck division, and they are stupid powerful from any electrical energy supplier, including wind generated power.
Again, we are talking energy density, or in this case charge density of metal based batteries.

I rode in a Nicola truck over a mountain, and it's MUCH more powerful than any diesel truck I've ever been in. While other LOADED trucks were crawling up the mountain, the Nicola did 60 MPH loaded 70,000 gross pounds.
I was SERIOUSLY impressed, which is the point of showing off Nicola trucks in mountain spots.
These trucks also have regenerative braking, going down the mountain part of the slowing down process helps recharge batteries. It's not a very efficient way to recharge batteries, but it beats loosing that energy to heat in brakes, every little bit helps.

-----------

The 'Intermittent' part is what has me scratching my head...
Big wind generators aren't put where the wind doesn't support them simply because to do so would cause a loss of investment (money), and someone that can finance a wind farm isn't dumb enough to put them where they are going to loose money...

While my little car alternator based wind generator is most certainly intermittent, that was it's purpose, to see if I had enough wind speed average to make a larger generator practical.
It's not for me, but I live in the river bottoms with a bunch of hills & trees, the boundary layer wind movement I have it's not practical to do a larger wind generator.

Professionals don't make my mistakes...


----------



## Heizen (Nov 7, 2020)

It is not difficult to realize that renewable energy in general and solar energy in particular is quickly becoming a source of energy for homes and businesses all over the world. 
Due to this industrial growth, there are numerous job opportunities available, including that of a solar energy technician whose work is to construct, install, and maintain solar panel systems.


----------

