14000 Abandoned Wind Turbines In The USA

Wind turbines are a helluva lot better than birds and fish dying in oil.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Well, this pretty much goes to the heart of the real problem: a sincere misunderstanding of how energy systems work. So if I can alleviate some of that misunderstanding, I am happy to do so.

Any electromagnetic field creates a voltage and subsequent current in any conductor it cuts across. That can be a wire, a piece of metal, part of a car body, a pair of pliers, or even a soldering iron. It especially creates this voltage across an inductor (otherwise known as a choke or coil). So installing a choke on a ground line actually traps the stray AC signals on each side of that choke.

Modern Field-Effect design has improved electronics, including power systems specifically, by allowing a voltage instead of a current to control a larger current. That's why your cell phone can run for three days on a single battery charge or why your laptop can operate for a few hours on its battery pack. Control currents are now measured in nano-amps (billionths of an amp) or even pico-amps (trillionths of an amp). The drawback is that Field-Effect inputs use a capacitor, extremely small and extremely sensitive to voltage, to couple them to the driving circuit. This capacitor can blow at voltages so small they cannot be felt. Now consider that the human body can build up tens of thousands of volts of static charge from such things as carpet and fur, and it is easy to see why these devices are so sensitive.

I can control how much fur is in my shop, or whether I have carpets. I can (and do) touch a grounded metal object every few minutes when working with components to allow any electrical potential to drain off. My soldering iron has a grounded tip to keep stray charges from building up on it. But when stray electromagnetic fields are creating voltages on metal tools which are then transferred to my hand as I use them, it is completely possible for the cumulative voltages to reach a few hundred volts in a matter of less than a minute. Then I touch a terminal (which already has some build-up due to the stray fields), that voltage releases into the terminal and arcs across the input capacitors. It is a tiny event; no sound, no smell, no indication I can see that anything has happened. But the device will no longer work properly.

I hope that makes things a bit clearer. Now back to the topic at hand.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
But when stray electromagnetic fields are creating voltages on metal tools which are then transferred to my hand as I use them, it is completely possible for the cumulative voltages to reach a few hundred volts in a matter of less than a minute. Then I touch a terminal (which already has some build-up due to the stray fields), that voltage releases into the terminal and arcs across the input capacitors. It is a tiny event; no sound, no smell, no indication I can see that anything has happened. But the device will no longer work properly.

I hope that makes things a bit clearer.

No it does not. I get it that a conductor can and will act as an antenna. I frankly don't understand how a random noise picked up by an antenna can result in some accumulation of static charge on your body, and result in a potential of a few hundred volts at that. If a piece of conductor about the size of a tool used in the shop was capable if generating voltages in 1-100V range, none of the electronics would function at all in the vicinity of a fluorescent lamp.

I see you specifically mention stray fields. Before, you were saying the ground gets dirty. Again, there is no clarity.

Thanks.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Well, I tried... sorry I couldn't make it clearer. You can take my experiences as truth or not. If you really want to understand the process, might I suggest a good book on electromagnetism and semiconductor design? After all, this thread is more about windmills and their advantages/disadvantages than a course on physics.

As to the size of the windmills being inconsequential, that argument sounds strangely familiar... I know I have heard it somewhere... let me think...

Oh! I remember now... it is the same argument I use against carbon-dioxide based Global Warming Theory! And it actually has some merit. The thing is, at one time oil was considered completely harmless to the environment, unlimited in supply, and the answer to all of society's energy needs. Today we realize it is a potential pollutant (not as in CO2, but as in instances such as the Gulf Spill), not infinite, and has created the global political climate we all war against on this site day after day.

All I say is we should keep in mind that we do not yet know everything there is to know about the potential consequences of our actions. We should continue to use wind power, but do so with an eye to unexpected consequences.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by buddhasystem

Well, I tried... sorry I couldn't make it clearer. You can take my experiences as truth or not. If you really want to understand the process, might I suggest a good book on electromagnetism and semiconductor design?

I've had classes in both, admittedly a long time ago. You can assume some level of knowledge, and I can muster some math. I'm not questioning your experiences, but just wanted to have a clear interpretation.

As to the size of the windmills being inconsequential, that argument sounds strangely familiar... I know I have heard it somewhere... let me think...

Oh! I remember now... it is the same argument I use against carbon-dioxide based Global Warming Theory!
...
We should continue to use wind power, but do so with an eye to unexpected consequences.

I agree with that. At the same time, if you just look at numbers or estimates... The sheer effect of man-made methane and C02 is substantial in terms of (a) volume of these gases released (b) the resulting trapping of IR.

As I mentioned in previous posts, the numbers you are likely to get for power dissipation in a wind farm, related to the atmospheric pool above it, are remarkably small and certainly much smaller than any sort of percentage increases in volume and effect of C02. But I would certainly support vigilance and modeling.

Who knew Fracking had the ability to be dangerous? We don't know yet. I want names.

Drill a hole..blast some high pressure fluids into a drilled hole near water supplies, that don't have a guage of sickness yet...pull fossile fuel energy and natural gases.
Welcome to fracking.

OH Tests show people might react to negative effects to the drinking water tables near fracking. Beneath ground level? Near fracking? No maps of waterflow?
Frack it... Let's Frack and get damage control in place for future reference..

Then we backpeddle We can do better.

Originally posted by neo96
Green energy is a farse it always has been simple fact the sun doesn't shine everyday nor does the wind blow but the kicker here is nope can't use them to save the animals?

Ridiculous whats even more ridiculous is to base a technology using nature aka the climate when they scream and shout oh noes! Global warming which means to push a global dominance on technology that changes what ever way the wind blows literally.

It's the same with a nuclear plant or coal plant everyone screams grand ol ideal until they want to put on in their own back yard and then its oh hell no.

Want to solve the worlds energy crisis bottle the bs that comes from the government and the "save the planet" crowd.

"oh noes?" Can you ever act like an adult in a discussion without throwing petty and childish insults to demean people who genuinely want to make the world a better place? Is humanity so god damned important that it's worth destroying ourselves and the ONLY known harbor to life in the entirety of the universe? Living in this society of loveless lust and useless belongings is poisoning our reason. We're so infatuated with ourselves that we can't stand to live peaceably with the nature we're a part of. Solar energy and geothermal energy are both viable examples of renewable energy that could support us.

reply to post by jibeho


Lawl sorry op but your link leads to nothing more than a propogandists site. If you want to be taken seriously try doing your own research and posting that instead of relying on some paid shill's propoganda.

reply to post by buddhasystem

I'm not questioning your experiences, but just wanted to have a clear interpretation.

Look up the relationships between voltage, current, and charge as they apply to different materials. The information you seek is in that direction. I am, again, sorry I am not much of a teacher.

...At the same time, if you just look at numbers or estimates... The sheer effect of man-made methane and C02 is substantial in terms of (a) volume of these gases released (b) the resulting trapping of IR.

As I mentioned in previous posts, the numbers you are likely to get for power dissipation in a wind farm, related to the atmospheric pool above it, are remarkably small and certainly much smaller than any sort of percentage increases in volume and effect of C02...

Not really. As far as CO2 is concerned, it comprises less than 0.04% of the atmosphere, has even less effect when compared with water vapor, and absorbs a tiny spectrum of IR radiation. There is also an indication that CO2 may be partly responsible for the Goldilocks effect that has kept our planet habitable for so long without the IPCC there to protect it.

With windmills, there is a dynamic of time that has to be taken into consideration. Wind is moving air, which contains a velocity component that varies non-linearly with time. It acts similar to the oceanic currents such as the Gulf Stream in that it transports heat to and from different areas of the earth. Imagine if someone wanted to tap the Gulf Stream! The uproar that would result would be so great they would likely have to leave the planet.

There is no difference between that and placing wind farms. Both would take some energy from an existing system, leaving it with less energy. In both, the key is how much energy can be taken without creating unexpected and unwanted change elsewhere. And in both, no one here knows the answer to that.

TheRedneck

This is a seriously biased opinion piece. Those turbines could just as easily be blamed on the Gov't lack of commitment to clean energy, rather then on the failure of clean energy itself.

To me, that is the problem here. I fundamentally disagree with the spin on this thing.

Clyde? What's the correct spin? I thought there was a dialog about alternative energy here.

Where did everyone miss the mark? Wrong category?

reply to post by jibeho


You forgot to mention that the models are kind of old. the 14k you speak of are those of practice. The wind turbine of the 21st century is ending up to be more efficient then the electric car.

Originally posted by niceguybob
Clyde? What's the correct spin? I thought there was a dialog about alternative energy here.

Where did everyone miss the mark? Wrong category?

I just have a problem with the argument made by the article that renewable energy is an industry thats basically propped up by subsidies, and without the subsidies its not sustainable.

The same thing has been true of farming for the better part of the last century. Some things necessarily need to be subsidized to ensure that they will eventually become self-sufficient.

It ends like this:

The tax payers who paid for the subsidies to build the wind farms, then paid over the odds for an unreliable source of power generation will, ultimately be left to pick up the bill for clearing up the Green eco mess in the post man made Global Warming world.

While i agree that Global Warming is a sham, I also think that renewable energy is an important for creating jobs and reducing our eco-footprint. We shouldn't measure renewable energy in terms of the mess it leaves behind, given that that mess is only there because of a genuine lack of interest from our governing institutions.

If we were as adamant about renewable energy as we were about oil, there would be no mess.

Im all for open discourse... just offering my personal opinion.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Not really. As far as CO2 is concerned, it comprises less than 0.04% of the atmosphere, has even less effect when compared with water vapor, and absorbs a tiny spectrum of IR radiation

But apparently calculations demonstrate that it has a significant heat trapping power. It's not just concentration, it's the scattering cross section. As an example from a different domain, you can "poison" a nuclear reactor by introducing very small amounts of neutron-absorbing substances.

With windmills, there is a dynamic of time that has to be taken into consideration. Wind is moving air, which contains a velocity component that varies non-linearly with time.

Wait, linearity means that the velocity would increase with time, all the time. Nobody said this was possible, so you are negating something that's pretty obviously false. I do agree that wind is moving air. Right on.

It acts similar to the oceanic currents such as the Gulf Stream in that it transports heat to and from different areas of the earth.

Gulf stream is more like a river running deep within the ocean and is not in fact similar to ambient winds on the surface of the planet.

Imagine if someone wanted to tap the Gulf Stream! The uproar that would result would be so great they would likely have to leave the planet.

The Stream is already moving and acting up, due to (supposedly) melting ice caps in Greenland. I definitely noticed the effect, as I live on Long Island. Humans don't have means to "tap" or otherwise intervene with the energy in the Stream on any but ridiculously small scale, far below it's natural variations.

There is no difference between that and placing wind farms. Both would take some energy from an existing system, leaving it with less energy.

There is a difference that I explained above. And, as energy goes -- when wind dissipates energy, it goes into heat. When a wind generator powers a stove, a PC and a hairdryer, it goes into heat. The only difference is that it doesn't do useful stuff for you in the former case and it does in the latter. Example -- a vat of wine went bad and smells like vinegar. You can dump it into environment. Or, you can let it mature into vinegar and add to your salad, and then ingest it. It will still end up in the environment, but your salad will hopefully taste better.

reply to post by buddhasystem

But apparently calculations demonstrate that it has a significant heat trapping power. It's not just concentration, it's the scattering cross section. As an example from a different domain, you can "poison" a nuclear reactor by introducing very small amounts of neutron-absorbing substances.

Apparently you are listening to East Anglia and the IPCC. CO2 has a very limited heat absorption/emission property, limited to three narrow bands of frequencies, of which only one band is even close to the IR frequencies emitted by the Earth. Each C-O bond can absorb one and only one photon at a time. These same characteristics, incidentally, are what make CO2 a decent lasing medium.

Wait, linearity means that the velocity would increase with time, all the time.

Nooooo......

Linearilty means the change with respect to time is linear. Non-linearity means the change with respect to time is not linear. Linear means the function of change to time is a straight line.

I don't know where you got this other stuff...

Gulf stream is more like a river running deep within the ocean and is not in fact similar to ambient winds on the surface of the planet.

Actually, there is tremendous similarity between the two examples of fluid mechanics in a chaotic system. Just because one medium is liquid and the other is gas does not mean they do not conform to similar laws of fluid dynamics.

The Stream is already moving and acting up, due to (supposedly) melting ice caps in Greenland. I definitely noticed the effect, as I live on Long Island. Humans don't have means to "tap" or otherwise intervene with the energy in the Stream on any but ridiculously small scale, far below it's natural variations.

The variations experienced recently in the Gulf Stream appear to me to be attributable to the variation in viscosity and specific heat capacity in the Gulf of Mexico associated with the Deepwater Horizon disaster. The oil spill affected the dynamics in that area and did cause some variations in Gulf Stream activity. Luckily (thankfully) those variations appear to be both minor and temporary, and no threat to continued operation of the current.

And the simple fact that this happened makes me raise an eyebrow at your last claim that we do not have the ability to create significant deviation in the Gulf Stream. We just did, and Global Warming Alarmists have been screaming for years how we are going to completely destroy it.

And, as energy goes -- when wind dissipates energy, it goes into heat. When a wind generator powers a stove, a PC and a hairdryer, it goes into heat. The only difference is that it doesn't do useful stuff for you in the former case and it does in the latter.

Wind affects weather patterns by moving air from one area to another, in the process moving heat or humidity from where it is created to another location. Wind does not produce heat; it transfers it. Otherwise downtown Chicago would be nice and toasty year round. That in itself is one major difference from powering your stove.

TheRedneck

Apparently you are listening to East Anglia and the IPCC. CO2 has a very limited heat absorption/emission property, limited to three narrow bands of frequencies, of which only one band is even close to the IR frequencies emitted by the Earth.

No I'm not listening to East Anglia.I don't even know what it is. I'm looking at sources (which may be possibly flawed but not necessarily) which mentioned modeling of the heat balance and effects of CO2 on the same. What you are saying "limited", "narrow" etc does make sense but it in itself does not indicate what result the proper mathematical model will produce.

Linearilty means the change with respect to time is linear. Non-linearity means the change with respect to time is not linear. Linear means the function of change to time is a straight line.

Oh, even better. Actually, linearity means a linear dependence of one variable on the other...

Change with respect to time is the time derivative. So you lost me there.

I don't know where you got this other stuff...

I can tell you where: you were pretty specific when you said this:

velocity component that varies non-linearly with time

Non-linearly with time means it's either grows linearly with time or decreases linearly with time, or stays constant, all of which are impossibilities. So yeah, it's not linear

Actually, there is tremendous similarity between the two examples of fluid mechanics in a chaotic system. Just because one medium is liquid and the other is gas does not mean they do not conform to similar laws of fluid dynamics.

The only real analogue (and not perfect at that) to the Gulf Stream is a jet stream up in the atmosphere. What I mean is concentration of energy flow into a well defined cross section. Unless you build wind farms at that altitude and location, the parallel does not work.

More later, we need to go to bed.

reply to post by buddhasystem

No I'm not listening to East Anglia.I don't even know what it is.

Wait... you don't know who East Anglia University is, but you continue on to say this:

I'm looking at sources (which may be possibly flawed but not necessarily) which mentioned modeling of the heat balance and effects of CO2 on the same.

East Anglia University is the major source of all the data on supposed CO2-based Global Warming Theory. They run the models; they make the conclusions; they issue predictions; they support carbon credit taxation.

That's like saying you like the movie "An Inconvenient Truth", but never heard of Al Gore.

What you are saying "limited", "narrow" etc does make sense but it in itself does not indicate what result the proper mathematical model will produce.

Then may I suggest you start reading up on the subject. There is a tremendous amount of information on the Internet concerning all this, and you can start by simply looking up the physical properties of carbon dioxide on Wikipedia.

Actually, linearity means a linear dependence of one variable on the other...

Now I believe you are playing games with me. You stated earlier you were familiar with mathematics, yet apparently did not understand such a simple mathematical concept. Now you re-word my response in an apparent attempt to undermine it.

Change with respect to time is the time derivative. So you lost me there.

When did we move into derivatives from simply linearity/non-linearity comparisons?

The only real analogue (and not perfect at that) to the Gulf Stream is a jet stream up in the atmosphere. What I mean is concentration of energy flow into a well defined cross section. Unless you build wind farms at that altitude and location, the parallel does not work.

Unless you believe that the surface winds are irrelevant, that does not hold. The similarity between the Gulf Stream and the Jet Stream(s) may be more similar, but the same physical laws govern all air and water currents.

Don't bother with more later. I am coming to believe you are playing some sort of game. I choose not to play. Thank you for the conversation.

TheRedneck