My attempt at humor really back fired.
With my experience with codes and ciphers,
No attachments but I think she meant the link below:
"www.ahamana.com"
She forgot the wu wu wu. An A ha! moment. Looks like they want to start an
alternative energy business.
--- In apollokauai@yahoogroups.com, Dean Liskum <deanliskum@...> wrote:
>
> I got the same, no attachment.
>
> Dean
>
> Clark Dodge wrote:
> >
> >
> > Nothing was attached.
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* apollokauai@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:apollokauai@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *mananalo7
> > *Sent:* Sunday, May 17, 2009 10:36 PM
> > *To:* apollokauai@yahoogroups.com
> > *Subject:* [apollokauai] Re: Powerful Hawaiian Alternative Energy News
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In apollokauai@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:apollokauai%40yahoogroups.com>, "aquacranial"
> > <aquacranial@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I just read this entire site and highly recommend you do the same:
> > >
> > > ahamana.com
> > >
> > > Wow, we have help in high places!
> > >
> > > Om shanti and aloha,
> > > Deborah
> > >
> > On the website it says "A meeting together of great minds...and
> > propellerheads."
> >
> > Sorry, didn't mean to be cynical or anything like that but I couldn't
> > help the humor.
> >
> >
>
I got the same, no attachment.
Dean
Clark Dodge wrote:
>
>
> Nothing was attached.
>
>
>
> *From:* apollokauai@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:apollokauai@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *mananalo7
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 17, 2009 10:36 PM
> *To:* apollokauai@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* [apollokauai] Re: Powerful Hawaiian Alternative Energy News
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In apollokauai@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:apollokauai%40yahoogroups.com>, "aquacranial"
> <aquacranial@...> wrote:
> >
> > I just read this entire site and highly recommend you do the same:
> >
> > ahamana.com
> >
> > Wow, we have help in high places!
> >
> > Om shanti and aloha,
> > Deborah
> >
> On the website it says "A meeting together of great minds...and
> propellerheads."
>
> Sorry, didn't mean to be cynical or anything like that but I couldn't
> help the humor.
>
>
From:
apollokauai@yahoogroups.com [mailto:apollokauai@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of mananalo7 Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 10:36 PM To: apollokauai@yahoogroups.com Subject: [apollokauai] Re: Powerful Hawaiian Alternative Energy News
--- In apollokauai@yahoogroups.com,
"aquacranial" <aquacranial@...> wrote:
>
> I just read this entire site and highly recommend you do the same:
>
> ahamana.com
>
> Wow, we have help in high places!
>
> Om shanti and aloha,
> Deborah
>
On the website it says "A meeting together of great minds...and
propellerheads."
Sorry, didn't mean to be cynical or anything like that but I couldn't help the
humor.
--- In apollokauai@yahoogroups.com, "aquacranial" <aquacranial@...> wrote:
>
> I just read this entire site and highly recommend you do the same:
>
> ahamana.com
>
> Wow, we have help in high places!
>
> Om shanti and aloha,
> Deborah
>
On the website it says "A meeting together of great minds...and propellerheads."
Sorry, didn't mean to be cynical or anything like that but I couldn't help the
humor.
You just don’t do it- ever....you don’t say it out loud. You don’t sit down, turn on the TV for the big game and say to your buddy “well this one is in the bag- we’re gonna win easy”. When your team takes a big lead late in the game you may think it but you never say “well, this one is over.”
The “jinx” factor is just too strong.... and you don’t have to be a sports fan to whistle in the graveyard or knock on wood either.
That irrationality may be the only plausible explanation for why no one wants to ask “what the heck is going on with this $1.99 a gallon gas just months after $150 a barrel ”peak oil” was redefining our future in every imaginable aspect.
Six months ago you couldn’t turn on a panel of TV talking heads without hearing detailed explanations of the hows and whys of soaring prices and the
resulting imperative for a change in the very essence of our energy production and consumption.
Now it’s shhhh- don’t say anything... you’ll hex it.
Has anyone heard anything? Nope, not a peep in the press asking how the heck this price drop happened. And along with that is a severe dearth of discussion of any plans to address what was and will be a crisis again... very shortly.
We’re not much for evidence-free conspiracy theories. But that said there is little we wouldn’t put past most of corporate America.
And we’re hardly alone in thinking there’s absolutely nothing we wouldn’t put past the oil companies.
While the price for oil soared there was no end to the detailed price-fixing charges against “big oil”... not that it really took much of a jump to connect the record profits from Exxon-Mobile, Shell and the rest to the jacked up prices that seem to have no basis in reality or rational
economics.
But no one- and we mean not the mainstream corporate media, not the alternative media, not even the bloggers- is questioning this brief era of cheap gas..
Now why would the oil companies conspire to lower prices beyond all reason- even more beyond reason than last Springs’s spike?
If you have to ask what Veep Chaney and his Bushy cohorts are up to, as Jon Stewart is fond of saying, you don’t know Dick.
Let’s remember the response to those high prices especially coming in the middle of a presidential election season.
While a diminishing handful of reactionary rabble were chanting “drill baby drill” the smart savvy and sane crowd could talk of nothing but a “green” energy future brought about through aggressive public and private investment in development of non-fossil, non-carbon producing alternative energy technologies
Democratic candidate Barack Obama made a huge commitment to this
investment making a non-carbon renewable energy future a centerpiece of his energy policy. Even oil man T-Bone Pickens of all people became a harbinger of this new day dawning.
But T-bone’s defection notwithstanding the oil companies were predictably silent on developing unconventional energy options preferring to counter the cries with insanely-euphemistic, oxymoronic advertisements for things like “clean coal” and “green drilling” that didn’t fool anyone.
So what’s an oil company that’s been raking in obscene record profits to do, especially with the likelihood that a windfall profits tax was a top agenda item for the inevitable Obama administration and new congress?
Well if you have a few trillion in profits lying around- cash you gouged out of consumers through years of unregulated price-fixing abetted by two oil company executives in the top two executive federal chairs- the one thing you don’t want to do is
see all the self-absorbed SUV-driving Americans change their gas-guzzling ways.
Well the dicks at Exxon might be malevolent but they ain’t dumb.
They knew they’d be in deep kim chee if January 20 were to roll along with high-priced gas- and alternative energy was going to be the number one issue.
High prices were bound to be perceived as, if not the sole cause, certainly the most immediate aspect exacerbating the impact of the coming economic Armageddon.
Not just their obscene profits, not just their business model, but their business itself might be swept out the door of “change”... unless....
Unless the price of oil falls off consumers’ radar screens at the very time when the plans for legislation and action are drawn up for the first year or so of an extremely busy new presidential and congressional regime.
And with the pile of cash they have been stockpiling- and the ease of raising prices back to
$5 a gallon at the drop of a hat once the agenda is set to exclude a massive push for alternative fuel plans- it’s a no brainer to invest a few hundred million to lower the cost for their products.
There was only one way to assure that we sheep would go back to sleep- give us cheap gas until that window for planning closes until the devil in the details of other “change” overwhelms the D.C. policy makers..
And very soon all the money- and perhaps more importantly the legislative time and effort- that was set to be invested in research, development and infrastructure for wind, solar, geothermal, hydrogen production and distribution networks and the like will be gone.
And then welcome back to $5, $6 maybe $10 a gallon gas.
And by all means if this scenario makes sense don’t say anything. As Phil Ochs said “Monopoly is so much fun we’d hate to spoil the game”
Or as Chaney and Bush would quote Ochs as they
steal the silverware on their way out, “I’m sure it wouldn’t interest anybody outside of a small circle of friends”.
You just don’t do it- ever....you don’t say it out loud. You don’t sit down, turn on the TV for the big game and say to your buddy “well this one is in the bag- we’re gonna win easy”. When your team takes a big lead late in the game you may think it but you never say “well, this one is over.”
The “jinx” factor is just too strong.... and you don’t have to be a sports fan to whistle in the graveyard or knock on wood either.
That irrationality may be the only plausible explanation for why no one wants to ask “what the heck is going on with this $1.99 a gallon gas just months after $150 a barrel ”peak oil” was redefining our future in every imaginable aspect.
Six months ago you couldn’t turn on a panel of TV talking heads without hearing detailed explanations of the hows and whys of soaring prices and the
resulting imperative for a change in the very essence of our energy production and consumption.
Now it’s shhhh- don’t say anything... you’ll hex it.
Has anyone heard anything? Nope, not a peep in the press asking how the heck this price drop happened. And along with that is a severe dearth of discussion of any plans to address what was and will be a crisis again... very shortly.
We’re not much for evidence-free conspiracy theories. But that said there is little we wouldn’t put past most of corporate America.
And we’re hardly alone in thinking there’s absolutely nothing we wouldn’t put past the oil companies.
While the price for oil soared there was no end to the detailed price-fixing charges against “big oil”... not that it really took much of a jump to connect the record profits from Exxon-Mobile, Shell and the rest to the jacked up prices that seem to have no basis in reality or rational
economics.
But no one- and we mean not the mainstream corporate media, not the alternative media, not even the bloggers- is questioning this brief era of cheap gas..
Now why would the oil companies conspire to lower prices beyond all reason- even more beyond reason than last Springs’s spike?
If you have to ask what Veep Chaney and his Bushy cohorts are up to, as Jon Stewart is fond of saying, you don’t know Dick.
Let’s remember the response to those high prices especially coming in the middle of a presidential election season.
While a diminishing handful of reactionary rabble were chanting “drill baby drill” the smart savvy and sane crowd could talk of nothing but a “green” energy future brought about through aggressive public and private investment in development of non-fossil, non-carbon producing alternative energy technologies
Democratic candidate Barack Obama made a huge commitment to this
investment making a non-carbon renewable energy future a centerpiece of his energy policy. Even oil man T-Bone Pickens of all people became a harbinger of this new day dawning.
But T-bone’s defection notwithstanding the oil companies were predictably silent on developing unconventional energy options preferring to counter the cries with insanely-euphemistic, oxymoronic advertisements for things like “clean coal” and “green drilling” that didn’t fool anyone.
So what’s an oil company that’s been raking in obscene record profits to do, especially with the likelihood that a windfall profits tax was a top agenda item for the inevitable Obama administration and new congress?
Well if you have a few trillion in profits lying around- cash you gouged out of consumers through years of unregulated price-fixing abetted by two oil company executives in the top two executive federal chairs- the one thing you don’t want to do is
see all the self-absorbed SUV-driving Americans change their gas-guzzling ways.
Well the dicks at Exxon might be malevolent but they ain’t dumb.
They knew they’d be in deep kim chee if January 20 were to roll along with high-priced gas- and alternative energy was going to be the number one issue.
High prices were bound to be perceived as, if not the sole cause, certainly the most immediate aspect exacerbating the impact of the coming economic Armageddon.
Not just their obscene profits, not just their business model, but their business itself might be swept out the door of “change”... unless....
Unless the price of oil falls off consumers’ radar screens at the very time when the plans for legislation and action are drawn up for the first year or so of an extremely busy new presidential and congressional regime.
And with the pile of cash they have been stockpiling- and the ease of raising prices back to
$5 a gallon at the drop of a hat once the agenda is set to exclude a massive push for alternative fuel plans- it’s a no brainer to invest a few hundred million to lower the cost for their products.
There was only one way to assure that we sheep would go back to sleep- give us cheap gas until that window for planning closes until the devil in the details of other “change” overwhelms the D.C. policy makers..
And very soon all the money- and perhaps more importantly the legislative time and effort- that was set to be invested in research, development and infrastructure for wind, solar, geothermal, hydrogen production and distribution networks and the like will be gone.
And then welcome back to $5, $6 maybe $10 a gallon gas.
And by all means if this scenario makes sense don’t say anything. As Phil Ochs said “Monopoly is so much fun we’d hate to spoil the game”
Or as Chaney and Bush would quote Ochs as they
steal the silverware on their way out, “I’m sure it wouldn’t interest anybody outside of a small circle of friends”.
(formerly Imperium Renewables Hawaii, now HECO Consultant)
''In November 2007, I attended the Fifth Roundtable of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (''RT5'') with field trips to Sime Darby's upstream operations at its palm plantation estates on Carey Island and downstream processing facilities near Kuala Lumpur (as discussed in more detail below, Sime Darby is the largest palm oil producer in the world).
Later in November and December 2007, I returned to Malaysia from Singapore and China to attend the Business Familiarization Program of the Malaysian Palm Oil Board in Kuala Lumpur and made a second trip to Sime Darby's palm plantation estates on Carey Island (''the Familiarization Program''). ...
Representative Hermina Morita, Chair of the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection, and Senator Ronald Menor, Chair of the Hawaii Senate Committee on Energy and the Environment joined me for the Familiarization Program.''
(PUC Docket 2007-0346, HECO RT-5, pages 3-5)
-- Mahalo,
Henry
Energy & Power in Hawaii Thursdays, 8:30-9:00 pm via TV (Channel 54) or simutaneous viewing on the Web(http://www.olelo.org/)
James said "My point is that we need to look less at "why not" and concentrate on "how"."
That is the key. We need to invest in perfecting carbon-free emission alternative technologies the more locally the product is produced the better.
We need a new deal- a new energy deal... a "Marshall Plan" to develop all the technologies that only need research and development dollars to actualize.
But instead we invest in wars to secure fossil fuel. We can afford that and stuff like trillion dollar bank bailouts but we can't invest in something that would make all that unnecessary.
got hydrogen?
--- On Tue, 9/9/08, gon2top2 <james.r.hall5@...> wrote:
From: gon2top2 <james.r.hall5@...> Subject: [apollokauai] Renewable Energy Ramblings To: apollokauai@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2008, 3:12 PM
Thanks to those who responded to my previous posting!
Background: I'm an electrical (electronic) engineer with 45 years experience. I consult part-time at Boeing in the area of very reliable computer chips for use in satellites. My wife, Kathleen, is a Psychologist with many years experience doing research and teaching at a state university.
I designed and built my own solar hot water system in 1983. I was amazed at how it was able to supply our hot water needs most of the time. (even on cloudy days!)
In my spare time I've done many hours of research on various aspects of renewable energy, much of it focused on the "why-nots". If I were to summarize my findings in one sentence, it would be: "nothing is perfect, but some things are very good." For each argument for or against a technology there is usually an equally strong argument for the opposing point of view. Usually the difference
in points of view is because the details being considered are different.
My point is that we need to look less at "why not" and concentrate on "how".
For example: I believe there are many opportunities for Kauai to obtain grants from various government agencies to do the things that need to be done for Kauai to be much less dependent on oil. They would love the opportunity to showcase Kauai's success as part of their own agency's accomplishments. Kathleen's experience includes obtaining grants to do research on drug abuse. It's not that difficult to do the the work required to get the grants.
How about teaching classes in the local high school and community college? The class would enable students to evaluate various technologies and would include building a photovoltaic electric system and a small wind system and - - -. Part of the course would teach the students how to assess the
performance of each technology. We could grow a new generation of environmentally conscious citizens!
FYI: My current opinions of various technologies for Kauai are: Solar hot water: a must-do Hydropower: a must-do Biomass: Not sure it's really practical. I need to know more. Coal: Maybe. There are some very clean coal-burning boiler systems. Natural Gas: The United States has a 150 year supply. It should be considered. Nuclear: I really like the technology, but it's probably not practical for a small system like Kauai would need. I need to know more. Large wind farms: a must-do, seems to have a difficult time getting off the ground in Kauai. Pun intended. Small wind turbines: Probably good, needs to be tried and decisions made based on the results.
I was not sure we had such people here on Kauai. You touched on many a system. My neighbor just
put in an Outback Power system and it is working fine, he put in the small one
and it is only 120 Volt, the nice one is 230 Volt. I visited their plant in ArlingtonWashington
and was very impressed with their system.
I have chatted with the EPA and many
others and you are right there are grant funds out there, but the big problem
is getting them easily and quickly. We can not afford not to get going on all
types of alternate energy. Right now there are the hurdles that have been
addressed in past posts. The cost of oil is and has been a factor and as long
as it is available and there is huge lobby in WashingtonDC,
to “NOT,” develop other systems for energy and automobiles, it will
be status quoi.
If I had the money and owned my own house
there is no question I would have Solar at a minimum. The new small wind
turbines are efficient and getting better every day, as far as noise, the new
ones are silent. The big wind turbines are slow turning and work very well. I
have talked to plant operators who say the birds are smart and see very well, more
are killed by running into clean windows that ever hit a turbine blade.
Your post is very well written and you are
correct, we need to get going now. Burning waste gas, collecting and burning
sewer gas, green waste, is sure better than smelling it in our neighborhoods.
I was a councilmember in WashingtonState and we had a sewer plant
in our city surrounded by multi-million dollar homes and it that returned clean
water to the sound and you could not smell anything from the plant. It is embarrassing
to have friends visit and I need to explain the smell at our plants here. We
should all be on sewers and the oceans should be clean with no sewage contamination
and no smells in our communities.
You are correct about many energy plants
not being cost effective, but I guess we have to ask ourselves, “As to
WHAT? Add up all kinds of energy and use what we can, save the oil for things
that we have no alternative for right now.
I had both Solar Hot Water and Solar Pool
heat in Seattle
and also used a small room heater in the house when there was extra heat. I
never ran out of Hot Water winter or summer and we had a family of 5. Don’t
tell me it does not work. If it works in Seattle
it is a dream to work for Hawaii.
Anyone who says they have to take a cold shower has a very serious problem with
their system of it is a very poor design.
You can buy system right of the web that
work and cost around $1500 to $2500.
Keep up the good work as we can make a difference.
If we all work together then our power companies won’t need to build new
plants and can update what we have. Every KWh we can get from other sources
saves diesel or other fuels.
From:apollokauai@yahoogroups.com [mailto:apollokauai@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of gon2top2 Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008
3:13 PM To:apollokauai@yahoogroups.com Subject: [apollokauai] Renewable
Energy Ramblings
Thanks to those who responded to my previous posting!
Background: I'm an electrical (electronic) engineer with 45 years
experience. I consult part-time at Boeing in the area of very
reliable computer chips for use in satellites.
My wife, Kathleen, is a Psychologist with many years experience
doing research and teaching at a state university.
I designed and built my own solar hot water system in 1983. I was
amazed at how it was able to supply our hot water needs most of the
time. (even on cloudy days!)
In my spare time I've done many hours of research on various aspects
of renewable energy, much of it focused on the "why-nots". If I
were to summarize my findings in one sentence, it would be: "nothing
is perfect, but some things are very good." For each argument for
or against a technology there is usually an equally strong argument
for the opposing point of view. Usually the difference in points of
view is because the details being considered are different.
My point is that we need to look less at "why not" and concentrate
on "how".
For example: I believe there are many opportunities for Kauai to
obtain grants from various government agencies to do the things that
need to be done for Kauai to be much less dependent on oil. They
would love the opportunity to showcase Kauai's
success as part of
their own agency's accomplishments. Kathleen's experience includes
obtaining grants to do research on drug abuse. It's not that
difficult to do the the work required to get the grants.
How about teaching classes in the local high school and community
college? The class would enable students to evaluate various
technologies and would include building a photovoltaic electric
system and a small wind system and - - -. Part of the course would
teach the students how to assess the performance of each
technology. We could grow a new generation of environmentally
conscious citizens!
FYI: My current opinions of various technologies for Kauai
are:
Solar hot water: a must-do
Hydropower: a must-do
Biomass: Not sure it's really practical. I need to know more.
Coal: Maybe. There are some very clean coal-burning boiler systems.
Natural Gas: The United
States has a 150 year supply. It should be
considered.
Nuclear: I really like the technology, but it's probably not
practical for a small system like Kauai would
need. I need to know
more.
Large wind farms: a must-do, seems to have a difficult time getting
off the ground in Kauai. Pun intended.
Small wind turbines: Probably good, needs to be tried and decisions
made based on the results.
Thanks to those who responded to my previous posting!
Background: I'm an electrical (electronic) engineer with 45 years
experience. I consult part-time at Boeing in the area of very
reliable computer chips for use in satellites.
My wife, Kathleen, is a Psychologist with many years experience
doing research and teaching at a state university.
I designed and built my own solar hot water system in 1983. I was
amazed at how it was able to supply our hot water needs most of the
time. (even on cloudy days!)
In my spare time I've done many hours of research on various aspects
of renewable energy, much of it focused on the "why-nots". If I
were to summarize my findings in one sentence, it would be: "nothing
is perfect, but some things are very good." For each argument for
or against a technology there is usually an equally strong argument
for the opposing point of view. Usually the difference in points of
view is because the details being considered are different.
My point is that we need to look less at "why not" and concentrate
on "how".
For example: I believe there are many opportunities for Kauai to
obtain grants from various government agencies to do the things that
need to be done for Kauai to be much less dependent on oil. They
would love the opportunity to showcase Kauai's success as part of
their own agency's accomplishments. Kathleen's experience includes
obtaining grants to do research on drug abuse. It's not that
difficult to do the the work required to get the grants.
How about teaching classes in the local high school and community
college? The class would enable students to evaluate various
technologies and would include building a photovoltaic electric
system and a small wind system and - - -. Part of the course would
teach the students how to assess the performance of each
technology. We could grow a new generation of environmentally
conscious citizens!
FYI: My current opinions of various technologies for Kauai are:
Solar hot water: a must-do
Hydropower: a must-do
Biomass: Not sure it's really practical. I need to know more.
Coal: Maybe. There are some very clean coal-burning boiler systems.
Natural Gas: The United States has a 150 year supply. It should be
considered.
Nuclear: I really like the technology, but it's probably not
practical for a small system like Kauai would need. I need to know
more.
Large wind farms: a must-do, seems to have a difficult time getting
off the ground in Kauai. Pun intended.
Small wind turbines: Probably good, needs to be tried and decisions
made based on the results.
What do you think?
SAN FRANCISCO — With the California blackouts of 2001 still a painful memory, Chris Beaudoin wants to generate some of his own electricity. He marveled the other day at how close he is to that goal, gazing at two new wind turbines atop his garage roof. They will soon be hooked to the power grid.
“I don’t care about how much it costs,” said Mr. Beaudoin, a flight attendant with United Airlines. That would be $5,000 a turbine, an expense Mr. Beaudoin is unlikely to recoup in electricity savings anytime soon.
No matter. After shoring up the roof and installing the two 300-pound, steel-poled turbines in January, Mr. Beaudoin found himself at the leading edge of a trend in renewable energy.
Fascination with wind turbines small enough to mount on a roof is spreading from coast to coast. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York last month proposed dotting the city with them. Small turbines have already appeared at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, atop an office building at Logan International Airport in Boston, and even on a utility pole in the small New Hampshire town of Hampton.
These tiny turbines generate so little electricity that some energy experts are not sure the economics will ever make sense.
By contrast, the turbines being installed at wind farms are getting ever larger and more powerful, lowering the unit cost of electricity to the point that they are becoming competitive with electricity generated from natural gas.
The spread of the big turbines and a general fascination with all things green are helping to spur interest in rooftop microturbines, creating a movement somewhere on the border between a hobby and an environmental fashion statement.
Some people have long stuck relatively modest turbines on towers in the countryside. Those are capable of generating enough electricity on a windy day to provide a fair portion of a home’s needs and can eventually pay for themselves. The new rooftop turbines are much smaller, however, and few statistics are available yet on their performance.
Mr. Beaudoin hopes to get 30 percent of his electricity from the turbines on a windy day, but whether that will happen remains to be seen. Jay Leno, the host of “The Tonight Show,” recently installed a prototype wind turbine (as well as solar panels) atop a garage in Burbank, Calif., where he works on his car collection. He senses public interest in small-scale wind power that does not have much to do with dollars-and-cents analysis.
“People seem fascinated by the turbines,” Mr. Leno said. “You go, ‘Look! It’s spinning!’ ”
Perched high above a building, wind turbines serve as a far more visible clean-energy credential than solar panels, which are often hard to see. At least a dozen small manufacturers have sprouted up to supply the market, though rooftop turbines still account for only 1 percent or so of the 10,000 small wind turbines that are sold each year in the country, according to Ron Stimmel, an advocate of small wind systems at the American Wind Energy Association.
That number seems poised to grow, given the recent interest.
“We’re prebleeding-edge early,” said Todd Pelman, founder of Blue Green Pacific, the maker of Mr. Beaudoin’s turbine. The technology, he conceded, is not yet “something that would be bought at Home Depot.”
Mr. Pelman has sunk $200,000 of his own money into the start-up, which has just three turbines in operation — Mr. Beaudoin’s pair, and one above Mr. Pelman’s own bedroom in a Victorian house in San Francisco.
In accordance with urban sensibilities, many of the new designs are stylish. The six turbines peeping over the edge of a building in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, installed this summer, look as if they are covered with dainty white parasols, a design touch that doubles as a bird shield. The French designer Philippe Starck has plans to introduce an elegant plastic turbine in Europe this fall.
Mr. Bloomberg’s proposal calls for wind turbines on the city’s skyscrapers and bridges, though it is unclear how big they will be and just where they will go.
“It’s the Wild West out there in small wind these days,” said David Rabkin, director of innovation, strategic partnerships and sustainability at the Museum of Science in Boston. Aided by a $300,000 state grant, the museum plans to put a total of nine turbines, of five types, on its roof by next April as an educational project.
Harvard also plans to put some atop its Holyoke Center office complex and on a parking garage. Harvard views the experimental installations as “outward symbols of our commitment to renewable energy and sustainability here on campus,” said Jim Gray, associate vice president for Harvard real estate services.
In San Francisco, another coastal city with abundant wind, the local government is considering introducing incentives to increase urban wind power.
“You’re seeing the birth of a movement,” said Jared Blumenfeld, director of the San Francisco Department of Environment, who hopes to put a turbine on his own home. “Ten years from now, you could probably see 2,000 to 3,000 rooftops with wind.”
But many experts caution that rooftops, while abundant, are usually poor places to harness the breeze. Not only are cities less windy than the countryside, but the air is choppier because of trees and the variation in heights in buildings. Turbulence can wear down a turbine and make it operate less efficiently. This is particularly problematic for houses with pitched roofs.
“In an urban environment, more times than not you’re better off with a solar panel,” said Mr. Stimmel, of the wind industry association.
A recent British study of wind on home roofs found that turbines generate less power than installers projected because of lower-than-expected wind speeds. Ian Woofenden, a senior editor at Home Power magazine who teaches wind workshops, estimates that electricity from rooftop turbines may cost $1.50 a kilowatt hour or more. (That is enough electricity to run a hair dryer for an hour, roughly.)
By comparison, he said, power from a well-sited, tower-mounted turbine would cost 10 to 50 cents a kilowatt hour, and power from utility-scale wind farms costs less than 10 cents a kilowatt hour.
“Rooftop wind economics are abysmal, since the resource just isn’t there,” he said in an e-mail message.
Rooftop wind advocates argue that output will turn out to be healthy in windy areas, and they also think that prices for small turbines will come down as the market grows, altering the economics.
The most established company selling rooftop turbines is AeroVironment, a California company better known for making unmanned aerial vehicles. It has installed demonstration projects on about a dozen commercial rooftops, including those at Logan airport and the Brooklyn Navy Yard.
According to Paul Glenney, director of the company’s clean energy technology center, the edge of a long, flat roof (above, say, a big-box store or warehouse) can experience up to 40 percent extra wind, much like the stiff breeze at the edge of a cliff.
Demand for AeroVironment’s rooftop turbines, which it sells for about $6,500 each, is strong, he said. “We’ve hidden our Web site very carefully, and yet people find us,” Mr. Glenney said.
AeroVironment officials say that rooftop turbines at windy sites in states with costly electricity could pay for themselves in four to eight years, but acknowledge that in places with low power prices, the turbines may never recoup their costs.
In May and June, the 20 Logan turbines combined produced just 1,430 kilowatt hours — less than the average home would use over that time. Airport authorities said, however, that the Boston winds pick up in the fall and winter. Mr. Leno thinks his turbine has generated about 725 kilowatt hours in six months of operation.
“You can say, ‘That’s not a lot,’ or ‘Every bit helps,’ ” Mr. Leno said.
British studies have recently suggested that making and transporting turbines for cities may lead to more carbon dioxide emissions than the turbines save.
A special challenge of urban turbine manufacturers is to make machines with minimal noise and vibration. At Logan, the only complaint has come from a person with an office right under a turbine.
“Basically he said it just sounds like he’s in a Stephen King movie — that howling when there’s a lot of wind,” said Sam Sleiman, director of capital programs at Massport, the agency overseeing the airport project.
But the more common reaction to these small turbines is envy. Reino Niemela, a San Franciscan, has a direct view of Mr. Beaudoin’s turbines from his backyard.
“I was thinking of doing something like that myself,” he said.
To: apollokauai@yahoogroups.com From: james.r.hall5@... Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 17:26:16 +0000 Subject: [apollokauai] Wind Power on Kauai
My Wife and I have homes in the two best places in the world (Kauai and San Diego) and try to actively participate in local activities when we are in Kauai. I am trying to understand why Kauai doesn't make extensive use of wind power. The electricity rates are the highest in the nation and there are usually good tradewinds blowing. It seems like a no-brainer to me.
I'd really like to hear what the major obstacles are and why they are preventing more use of windpower. In particular I'm thinking of small wind power where the power generation can directly benefit the owner rather than going onto the grid. My analysis says that such a system can pay for itself from day one (assuming a loan to finance it) and reach full payback in only 3 to 5 years.
I'm especially interested in any insight into what customs, beliefs, prejudices, environmental concerns may exist.
Thanks for your insights!
Jim Hall
Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows Live. See Now
So sorry to burst your bubble about rooftop wind. Yet
another idea that looks good until you actually do the math—then it
becomes a counter-productive waste of time and money and energy. See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/business/04wind.html?ei=5070
for a good overview.
Unsubsidized costs are
Rooftop wind is around $1.50 KWH – that is around
$300/bbl - $400/bbl oil for diesel generation (O’ahu generation is heavy
fuel oil, maybe half the price of diesel)
Residential tower turbines (well sited) $0.50 KWH (or maybe
a little less with great sites) – that is around $120/bbl oil
(BTW, this connects back up with an earlier discussion about
putting lots of little wind turbines up on utility poles. Now we know
that doesn’t work either. Too bad—but let’s keep
thinking outside the box.)
But all these costs are energy only and don’t included
the costs of storage. Location, Location, Location. Yes for sure for
wind. But Storage, storage, storage for sure too for any variable and intermittent
renewable source of electricity. AND THE PRICES ABOVE DO NOT INCLUDE
STORAGE.
For little residential PV and wind projects, you can skip
storage as long as you do them but not your neighbors. They don’t
scale up without storage.
Frequency storage determines how much variable renewable you
can attach to your grid. With no frequency storage you can only get some
small percentage of total generation from V&I renewables. Maybe 10%,
maybe 15%, it depends on lots of factors, but it is a small number. And the
smaller your grid, the smaller the max percentage. That is why on Maui they have to feather the wind turbine blades at
night—they have to keep the percentage from wind below a threshold where
the wind causes blackouts and the total nightly load is smaller so they can’t
get as many MW from the wind farm.
Frequency storage costs are around $1M/MWH. Hard to
make a rule of thumb, but you probably need a ratio of 1x or 2X frequency storage
MWH to wind capacity MW if you want to achieve high penetration on wind, e.g.
numbers above 25%. And we are fudging the definition of frequency storage
to include just enough capacity storage to have time to notice the wind isn’t
blowing anymore, then notice is doesn’t look like it is going to start
blowing in the next few minutes, start up the fuel-based generation, and bring
that online.
For comparison, frequency storage for fuel based generation
is ZERO. Fuel-based generation has a “cruise-control”
throttle like your car. Set it and forget it and the generator puts out
the MW needed. (The enlightened reader may ask at this time why we can’t
use the cruise-control of the fuel based generation to compensate for the
variable nature of the renewable generation. To a small degree we can and
do—that is exactly how we get the renewable penetration up to 10% or
15%. But the fuel based generation can only do so much—there are
actually physical limits based on the inertia of fuel flow, etc. To
continue the cruise control analogy, when your cruse control is set your car
could go up and down slight hills and keep to the set speed. But when you
encounter a really steep hill the car will bog down before it can catch up to
the right speed. The utility grid can’t bog down from its 60HZ
speed or your appliances (and other generation sources attached to the grid)
blow up.
Even with infinite frequency storage, you can’t save
the wind power for when the wind isn’t blowing. So if the wind only
blows 50% of the time even with an infinite wind farm and infinite frequency
storage, you are only going to achieve 50% wind penetration. If you want
to save that blowing wind for later you’ve got to have capacity
storage. Batteries like we used for frequency storage don’t do it.
They are too expensive. We need to use either compressed air storage or
pumped water storage. The prices are very hard to estimate and pumped
water storage has a huge environmental foot print.)
My understanding is that everything (solar, wind, otec, wave) can compete without subsidies against oil-based electricity if oil is greater than $80/barrel. With wind, the problem is getting landowners to accept them, and accurately measuring the wind speed to find the optimal location. FirstWind and others are exploring sites.
UH Manoa's Sustainable Saunders has a very short horizontal wind turbine on its roof. Rooftop wind is and should be installed along side pv and solar water heaters.
My understanding is that everything (solar, wind, otec, wave) can compete without subsidies against oil-based electricity if oil is greater than $80/barrel. With wind, the problem is getting landowners to accept them, and accurately measuring the wind speed to find the optimal location. FirstWind and others are exploring sites.
UH Manoa's Sustainable Saunders has a very short horizontal wind turbine on its roof. Rooftop wind is and should be installed along side pv and solar water heaters.
environmental issues are mostly over bird kill and excessive noise.
too bad you missed our last AK meeting as it focused on wind.
there does seem to be some potential projects coming up with KIUC.. but it will take some time.
that is the short answer.
pam
On Sep 4, 2008, at 7:26 AM, gon2top2 wrote:
My Wife and I have homes in the two best places in the world (Kauai and San Diego) and try to actively participate in local activities when we are in Kauai. I am trying to understand why Kauai doesn't make extensive use of wind power. The electricity rates are the highest in the nation and there are usually good tradewinds blowing. It seems like a no-brainer to me.
I'd really like to hear what the major obstacles are and why they are preventing more use of windpower. In particular I'm thinking of small wind power where the power generation can directly benefit the owner rather than going onto the grid. My analysis says that such a system can pay for itself from day one (assuming a loan to finance it) and reach full payback in only 3 to 5 years.
I'm especially interested in any insight into what customs, beliefs, prejudices, environmental concerns may exist.
My Wife and I have homes in the two best places in the world (Kauai
and San Diego) and try to actively participate in local activities
when we are in Kauai. I am trying to understand why Kauai doesn't
make extensive use of wind power. The electricity rates are the
highest in the nation and there are usually good tradewinds blowing.
It seems like a no-brainer to me.
I'd really like to hear what the major obstacles are and why they
are preventing more use of windpower. In particular I'm thinking of
small wind power where the power generation can directly benefit the
owner rather than going onto the grid. My analysis says that such a
system can pay for itself from day one (assuming a loan to finance
it) and reach full payback in only 3 to 5 years.
I'm especially interested in any insight into what customs, beliefs,
prejudices, environmental concerns may exist.
Thanks for your insights!
Jim Hall
Was watching this on TV and then read
this. This is the best write up yet, as it does not come from either side
so maybe we can get some solar and wind power projects going. I was
reading some of my contact websites for kits to install solar hot water
heating. The kits cost about $1500 to $2500 depending on what you want. They
are easy to install, to bad they make you use certain contractors.
Now for the actual FACTS from a reputable
news agency rather than a right-wing fat wallet blogger.
. Middle-class families get tax cuts that are three times
larger from Obama than from McCain, and the McCain plan givesnearly one-quarter of its benefits to
households making more than $2.8 million annually - the top 0.1%.
What they'll do to your tax bill
McCain and Obama want to change the bottom-line effects of
the tax code. Here's a dollars-and-cents breakdown of what their plans could
mean for you.
BREAKING DOWN
THE NUMBERS
Here's how the
average tax bill could change in 2009 if either John McCain's or Barack
Obama's tax proposals were fully in place.
MCCAIN
OBAMA
Income
Avg. tax bill change
Avg. tax bill change
THE
RICH WIN
Over $2.9M
-$269,364
+$701,885
$603K and up
-$45,361
+$115,974
$227K-$603K
-$7,871
+$12
$161K-$227K
-$4,380
-$2,789
$112K-$161K
-$2,614
-$2,204
MIDDLE
CLASS WINS
$66K-$112K
-$1,009
-$1,290
$38K-$66K
-$319
-$1,042
$19K-$38K
-$113
-$892
Under
$19K
-$19
-$567
Source:The TaxPolicyCenter
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- John McCain and Barack
Obama have starkly different philosophies about tax policy - how to raise the
revenue needed to support government programs, spur growth and ensure economic
fairness.
But voters really want to know one thing: How would the
presidential candidates' views trickle down to their tax bills? A report
released Wednesday by a nonpartisan policy group in Washington, D.C.,
takes a big first step toward answering that question.
According to the TaxPolicyCenter's
findings, the common assumptions most people make about the plans of McCain,
the presumptive Republican nominee, and Obama, the Democrats' pick, are not
wildly off-base.
McCain: The average taxpayer in every income group would see
a lower tax bill, but high-income taxpayers would benefit more than everyone
else.
Obama: High-income taxpayers would pay more in taxes, while
everyone else's tax bill would be reduced. Those who benefit the most - in
terms of reducing their taxes as a percentage of after-tax income - are in the
lowest income groups.
Under both plans, all American taxpayers could pay a price
for their tax cuts: a bigger deficit. The TaxPolicyCenter estimates that over 10 years,
McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5
trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion.
The reason: neither plan would raise the amount of revenue
expected under current tax policy - which assumes all the 2001 and 2003 tax
cuts expire by 2011. And neither plan would raise enough to cover expected
government costs during those 10 years.
"Distributionally, they're markedly different. But in
terms of their impact on revenue, the two plans are not terribly
different," said Roberton Williams, principal research associate at the
Tax Policy Center and the former deputy assistant director for tax analysis at
the Congressional Budget Office.
A closer look
In addition to making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent,
McCain says he would double the exemption for dependents, lower the corporate
tax rate, make expensing rules more generous for small businesses and lessen
the bite of the estate tax and Alternative Minimum tax.
The net result: compared with their tax bill today,
taxpayers on average would see their tax bill cut by nearly $1,200. That means
their after-tax income would rise by 2%.
But those in the lowest income groups would only see their
after-tax income rise by less than 1% (or between $19 and $319). By contrast,
the highest-income households - those with incomes of at least $603,000 - would
see a boost in after-tax income of 3.4%, or more than $40,000.
Obama's plan would keep the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in place
for everyone except those making more than roughly $250,000, and he would
increase the capital gains tax.
Obama would also introduce new tax breaks for lower and
middle-income groups. Such breaks include expanding the earned income tax
credit, giving those making less than $150,000 a $500 tax credit per person on
the first $8,100 in income, giving those making under $75,000 a 50% federal
match on the first $1,000 of savings, and exempting seniors making less than
$50,000 from having to pay income tax.
Like McCain, Obama would lessen the bite of the estate tax
and the Alternative Minimum Tax, but to a lesser degree.
The net result: compared with their tax bill today,
taxpayers on average would see their tax bill cut by nearly $160 under Obama's
plan. That means their after-tax income would rise by 0.3%.
But those in the lowest-income groups would enjoy the
biggest after-tax income rise as a percentage of income - between 2.4% and 5.5%
(worth between $567 and $1,042). By contrast, the highest-income households -
those with at least $603,000 in income - would see a dramatic decline in their
after-tax income - a drop of 8.7%, or $116,000.
The campaigns respond
Jason Furman, a newly appointed senior economic adviser to
Obama, said his preliminary response is that the report's findings bear out
what Obama's campaign has been saying: that he's for the middle class.
Thought you may want to see this. Like I
said there is no one single bullit to solve it all.
Clark
From:monorailsociety@yahoogroups.com [mailto:monorailsociety@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Leabow Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 3:15
AM To:monorailsociety@yahoogroups.com Subject: [monorailsociety] Re:
Cover of current Popular Science
Don't skip the intro - use the continue and navigation
forward
buttons.
--- In monorailsociety@yahoogroups.com,
"rushloughridge"
<rushloughridge@...> wrote:
>
> It's another utopian"picture of the future " article but is that
personal transport system recognizable to anyone? If I was young I'd
be more enthusiastic but I'm dubious of many of
> its aspects.
> (Very stylized layout from commercial artist for this grouping of
many conceptual modes and
> energy sources, etc. but it does serve to jog memory. I had seen
MIT folding/interlocking
> shared transit "cars" on net before. Even in "the
future" we're
going to need handrails on
> stairs! )
>
> thanks
>
Just read Johns posting and thought of all
the things that are hurting us worldwide and at the home front. Here is
one that is making the rich richer and the rest of us going down the tube.
My neighbor is installing a new Outback
Power solar power system this week as he said he has had it with power cost.
I toured the plant and they build a great product. All sizes and 120/230
VAC, and he is doing his in phases with the 10KW, Solar 110VAC first.
I will let everyone know about it.
They make a combo unit too with wind and solar.
From:Freeman haun [mailto:freemanhaun@...]
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:56
AM To: Clark Dodge Cc: Larry Ellington; Joyce; Pat
Newnam; Earl Scott; bill smith; Carol Spengler; john thomas Subject: FW: [Fwd: Fw: Container
Shipments From China]
--- On Fri, 5/30/08, Bob Magaffin <rmagaffin@...>
wrote:
From:
Bob Magaffin <rmagaffin@...>
Subject: FW: [Fwd: Fw: Container Shipments From China]
To: "Al Sears" <adsears@...>,
bcarr911@..., nisclay@..., 2dickhall@..., freemanhaun@..., mikehaloski@...,
"Mike Lomenick" <bbracers@...>, "Mike
Reed" <carltonreed@...>, randem45@...,
mcafeest@..., wanze@...
Date: Friday, May 30, 2008, 9:29 PM
From: Chuck Sturges
[mailto:casturges@...] Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008
11:08 AM To: Snake; Dick Merrell Subject: [Fwd: Fw: Container
Shipments From China]
From: Craig Kyle [mailto:craighorn@...]
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008
3:37 PM To: Craig Yahoo Subject: Container Shipments
From China
SHIPPING
FROMCHINA
The Emma
Maersk
Please maximize your screen for better viewing.
What a ship....no
wonder 'Made in China'
is displacing North American goods big time with this floating
continent transporting goods across
the Pacific in 4 days, no less!
This is how
Wal-Mart gets its goods from China.
Get a load of this ship! 15,000 containers
and a 207' beam!
And look at the crew-size: 13 people for a ship longer
than a U S aircraft carrier which has a crew of 5,000 men and officers.
Think it's big enough?
Notice that the 207' beam means it cannot fit through
the Panama or SuezCanals.
It is strictly transpacific. Check out the cruise speed:
31 knots means the goods arrive
4 days before the typical container ship
(18-20 knots) on a China-to-California run.
So this behemoth is hugely competitive when carrying
perishable goods. This ship was
built in five sections. The sections floated together and then welded.
The command bridge is higher than a 10-story building and has 11 cargo
crane rigs that can operate simultaneously.
Silicone painting applied to the ship bottom reduces
water resistance and saves
317,000 gallons of diesel fuel per year.
???
Editorial Comment!A recent documentary in late March on the History Channel, noted that almost all
of these containers are shipped back to China,EMPTY, yep, you heard it right. We send nothing back on most
of these ships. What does that tell you about the current export
industry of this country?
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1473 - Release Date: 5/29/2008
7:53 PM
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1473 - Release Date: 5/29/2008
7:53 PM
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.21/1458 - Release Date: 5/21/2008 7:21
AM
Post a Comment