# From a Poster at MH



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

one would think some sort of relevant math would accomodate all the vitirol in that piece Brian....~CS~


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Big business pushes these things.. it should be a red flag that is it not a good idea to begin with... 

As I keep pointing out.. when these wind turbines reach the end of their life cycle... it will take $$$$$$$$$ to remove them along with the grid it was connected too...

When one breaks down and needs to be replaced... there goes all the savings that were generated before it was installed...


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

couldn't we say the _same_ of nuke plants B4T?

~CS~


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> couldn't we say the _same_ of nuke plants B4T?
> 
> ~CS~


I'll bet nuke plants work a whole lot better...:thumbup:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

well i think you're right Harry, just wish they'd plug all the leaks in ours here...:blink:....really bad press....~CS~


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> couldn't we say the _same_ of nuke plants B4T?
> 
> ~CS~


Yes.. you can... and I don't see any savings there either....

The game plan right now is to store the radioactive waste generated by the plant in abandoned mines somewhere in the desert...

I am all for solar energy.. just look at all the roofs that could support solar panels that would ease the need to build more power plants..

They just need to drop the cost to make it accessible to more people...


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

When you do the math, the amount of free sunlight falling on the Earth is absolutely staggering. Not accounting for angular variations, at peak sunlight directly overhead, the land area of the contiguous United States absorbs over 7,500,000,000,000,000 watts of solar power.

Could you imagine if every roof had solar panels? If we heated our water with sunlight and stored it, and used batteries to power night time lighting loads, with gas-fired plants making up for what we can't store...


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

InPhase277 said:


> ...
> Could you imagine if every roof had solar panels? If we heated our water with sunlight and stored it, and used batteries to power night time lighting loads, with gas-fired plants making up for what we can't store...


 And what happens to the climate if that was done? The sun's energy does not change so the amount of energy that creates electricity will not be creating heat.


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> And what happens to the climate if that was done? The sun's energy does not change so the amount of energy that creates electricity will not be creating heat.


Nothing. You are forgeting the laws of thermodynamics. All the energy we collect will still end up as heat in the end. Besides that, the added reflectivity of the panels would offset to some extent the added absorbtion we've made by building blactops, parking lots, farmland, etc.

And besides that, the vast majority of the planet's area is the ocean, so a few million square miles of solar panels won't be a drop in the bucket. But ultimately, thermodynamics wins.


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

InPhase277 said:


> Nothing. You are forgeting the laws of thermodynamics. All the energy we collect will still end up as heat in the end. Besides that, the added reflectivity of the panels would offset to some extent the added absorbtion we've made by building blactops, parking lots, farmland, etc.
> 
> And besides that, the vast majority of the planet's area is the ocean, so a few million square miles of solar panels won't be a drop in the bucket. But ultimately, thermodynamics wins.


Actually, the solar energy absorbed by the ground would change if panels are placed between the sun and ground. If panels are 15% efficient then 85% of that energy would go into the air around the panels. Some of that would be absorbed by the ground. But most would heat the air, be carried by wind and have some of the same characteristics that large metro areas have now. The heat would not be stored as it is now. The impact would be based on how much surface the panels would have to cover. I figure it would take 1.7 million acres of solar panels to power just the homes in the US.


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

backstay said:


> Actually, the solar energy absorbed by the ground would change if panels are placed between the sun and ground. If panels are 15% efficient then 85% of that energy would go into the air around the panels. Some of that would be absorbed by the ground. But most would heat the air, be carried by wind and have some of the same characteristics that large metro areas have now. The heat would not be stored as it is now. The impact would be based on how much surface the panels would have to cover. I figure it would take 1.7 million acres of solar panels to power just the homes in the US.


I'm not sure if it matters if the light heats the air at ground level, or if it heats the air at 15-20 ft. above it. The fact is, all of the energy we use will become heat through its use anyway, so the net amount of heat will stay the same.

AND we won't be adding any new heat by burning fuel.


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

InPhase277 said:


> I'm not sure if it matters if the light heats the air at ground level, or if it heats the air at 15-20 ft. above it. The fact is, all of the energy we use will become heat through its use anyway, so the net amount of heat will stay the same.
> 
> AND we won't be adding any new heat by burning fuel.


But the ground acts like a regulator. That's part of the reason cities are warmer than the surrounding countryside. It's the sun striking the ground that stores some energy in it. That why(partly) when snow covers the ground it's colder and why the ground freezes. The solar energy is no longer being absorbed. The sun doesn't warm the air at anywhere near the rate it warms the ground or water.


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

backstay said:


> But the ground acts like a regulator. That's part of the reason cities are warmer than the surrounding countryside. It's the sun striking the ground that stores some energy in it. That why(partly) when snow covers the ground it's colder and why the ground freezes. The solar energy is no longer being absorbed. The sun doesn't warm the air at anywhere near the rate it warms the ground or water.


I agree. What I'm saying is that of the 85% of the energy wasted by the solar panel, not all of it is reflected. A large portion of it goes into heating the panel itself and the roof and building beneath it. So, instead of being stored in the ground it will be stored in the structure, which will then heat the air.

At any rate, the dark colored roof before solar panels were installed absorbed more energy than the same area of green grass. Installing a semi reflector on roofs only serves to undo some of what covering a patch of grass did. In other words, lots of solar panels should just reverse some of the warming caused by large cities. And like I said earlier, it's just a drop in the bucket.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Wasn't there a thread about boondoggles yesterday? "green" energy is costing citizens a boatload of money with no return. This is just one small town....



http://www.thelandmark.com/news/2012-09-13/Front_Page/Electricity_rate_among_highest_in_state.html


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

InPhase277 said:


> I agree. What I'm saying is that of the 85% of the energy wasted by the solar panel, not all of it is reflected. A large portion of it goes into heating the panel itself and the roof and building beneath it. So, instead of being stored in the ground it will be stored in the structure, which will then heat the air.
> 
> At any rate, the dark colored roof before solar panels were installed absorbed more energy than the same area of green grass. Installing a semi reflector on roofs only serves to undo some of what covering a patch of grass did. In other words, lots of solar panels should just reverse some of the warming caused by large cities. And like I said earlier, it's just a drop in the bucket.


The panels get very warm. Mine will melt snow off way below 0 deg. And on a side note, they are now producing at 100 % rated output. As it gets colder they will increase even more.


----------



## buddhakii (Jan 13, 2011)

I was brainstorming while driving one day and it hit me. I can solve all the countries energy problems. Lay copper inside of the roads and install magnets on the bottom of all of our cars. So would it work?


----------



## LARMGUY (Aug 22, 2010)

O G and E Oklahoma Gas and Electric has available to me the option of signing up for my electricity to be generated 25%, 50% or 100% by wind power. The rate is more per kilowatt hr too. The obvious question here is how they could take my house off of the grid in my housing area and give me 100 percent wind power?

In addition, I would be charged at a higher rate than my neighbors but I could feel good because I went green energy. :whistling2:


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

buddhakii said:


> I was brainstorming while driving one day and it hit me. I can solve all the countries energy problems. Lay copper inside of the roads and install magnets on the bottom of all of our cars. So would it work?


Yes, it would work, but think about how far the magnets would be from the road surface. Have to be some pretty strong magnets, and every piece of junk out there would be stuck to the chassis. Maybe put the magnets in the tires? Well, I guess then every nail and screw would be flying towards your tires.


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

LARMGUY said:


> O G and E Oklahoma Gas and Electric has available to me the option of signing up for my electricity to be generated 25%, 50% or 100% by wind power. The rate is more per kilowatt hr too. The obvious question here is how they could take my house off of the grid in my housing area and give me 100 percent wind power?
> 
> In addition, I would be charged at a higher rate than my neighbors but I could feel good because I went green energy. :whistling2:


They won't be seperating you from the grid you are already connected to. Just shuffling where you are on the balance sheet.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

buddhakii said:


> I was brainstorming while driving one day and it hit me. I can solve all the countries energy problems. Lay copper inside of the roads and install magnets on the bottom of all of our cars. So would it work?


 
They have already experimented with sidewalks that generate electricity by the up and down movement and they were experimenting with the theory of moving this idea into raodways. The problem is, there's no such thing as free energy. Even if they had such a highway, that was generating energy from the traffic flow on it, the cars driving on such a highway would get less gas mileage. It's still not really what I would consider free energy.


----------



## etb (Sep 8, 2010)

InPhase277 said:


> They won't be seperating you from the grid you are already connected to. Just shuffling where you are on the balance sheet.


Yup, energy is bought and sold on a market.



mcclary's electrical said:


> They have already experimented with sidewalks that generate electricity by the up and down movement and they were experimenting with the theory of moving this idea into raodways. The problem is, there's no such thing as free energy. Even if they had such a highway, that was generating energy from the traffic flow on it, the cars driving on such a highway would get less gas mileage. It's still not really what I would consider free energy.


Good thinking, but depends on the situation.

The idea somebody posted above about roadway generators would fail. In that case, the load created by the generator would be powered directly by the vehicle locomotion. It would be like putting a wind turbine on the roof of your car. But there are vibrational modes that are not connected to the car's locomotion, and you can steal the power from those with no effect. Certainly, that energy is not free, but it's energy that will go to waste if not captured, and whether captured or not, it doesn't effect the car.

There's plenty to read out there about all the energy harvesting crap. Like any other fad, there's fact and fantasy. For the most part, it's only useful to power sensors that transmit data wirelessly, etc. Or things like sneakers that charge a cell phone battery. Other than that, it's not worth the effort to collect for use.


----------



## etb (Sep 8, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> one would think some sort of relevant math would accomodate all the vitirol in that piece Brian....~CS~


I might agree, but like anything anymore, there's data on both sides, and you just pick whose numbers you want to believe.

I haven't looked into anything on wind, and I won't. I don't really care what the technology is, I don't support the idea of the government subsidizing *anything*, whether technology or social programs.


----------



## LARMGUY (Aug 22, 2010)

etb said:


> I might agree, but like anything anymore, there's data on both sides, and you just pick whose numbers you want to believe.
> 
> I haven't looked into anything on wind, and I won't. I don't really care what the technology is, I don't support the idea of the government subsidizing *anything*, whether technology or social programs.


Amen!

Hey etb, the Siemens plant in Hutch is laying off 146. It has only been running for about two years.



> The cuts come after months of warnings by executives in the wind industry that the likely expiration of the federal production tax credit on Jan. 1 would mean a plunge in demand that would likely force layoffs.
> As wind farm developers rushed to get projects built under the tax credit this year, Kansas saw its single biggest year for new wind turbines, as capacity nearly doubled to 2,600 megawatts.
> The tax credit provides 2.2 cents per kilowatt hour of subsidy and has become a high-profile political point of contention between fiscal conservatives and wind power supporters in Congress and in the Obama administration.
> Utilities are also moving toward natural gas, which has dropped in price because of the oversupply created as horizontal drilling and fracking led to the recovery of more gas.
> ...


http://www.kansas.com/2012/09/18/2495120/siemens-to-lay-off-146-at-hutchinson.html


----------



## etb (Sep 8, 2010)

LARMGUY said:


> Hey etb, the Siemens plant in Hutch is laying off 146. It has only been running for about two years.


Yeah, I had heard from somebody who's there. At least they get a good severance package. Any employee who works in such a volatile field should not expect for it to last long.

I'm actually more concerned with Boeing leaving, layoffs, canceled production models, etc in the shrinking air capital. And the Bombardier strike backing up traffic is getting old.


----------



## LARMGUY (Aug 22, 2010)

etb said:


> Yeah, I had heard from somebody who's there. At least they get a good severance package. Any employee who works in such a volatile field should not expect for it to last long.
> 
> I'm actually more concerned with Boeing leaving, layoffs, canceled production models, etc in the shrinking air capital. And the Bombardier strike backing up traffic is getting old.


Didn't Boeing sell that McConnell campus about 2000? Which Boeing are you referring to?


----------



## etb (Sep 8, 2010)

LARMGUY said:


> Didn't Boeing sell that McConnell campus about 2000? Which Boeing are you referring to?


Not unless I missed something. But that part is Spirit Aerosystems now, formed after the split around 2004 I think.

http://www.kwch.com/news/kwch-news-...ing-wichita-facility-20120104,0,4196078.story

http://www.kansas.com/2012/01/04/2162092/boeing-to-close-wichita-plant.html


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

etb said:


> > I might agree, but like anything anymore, there's data on both sides, and you just pick whose numbers you want to believe.
> 
> 
> because i'm servicing the rural contingent, i need to listen , as well as have a grasp on 'the math' etb
> ...


----------



## LARMGUY (Aug 22, 2010)

etb said:


> Not unless I missed something. But that part is Spirit Aerosystems now, formed after the split around 2004 I think.
> 
> http://www.kwch.com/news/kwch-news-...ing-wichita-facility-20120104,0,4196078.story
> 
> http://www.kansas.com/2012/01/04/2162092/boeing-to-close-wichita-plant.html


 
Looks like OKC will get a shot of employees. That's good. *But this just peeees me off to no end !!!*. Multibillion dollar companies asking for tax incentives to cities they could buy and sell just to get some more employees to settle there. I know both facilities as I have worked installing and maintaining access control and CCTV in both.



> Boeing Wichita employs 2,160 people. About 1,200 of those jobs will be moved to Oklahoma City and San Antonio. In San Antonio they will do the maintenance, modification and support work. And in Oklahoma City is where engineering will take place. Bass says it's cheaper to operate those facilities because they are smaller in size and labor costs are lower. The Wichita facility has 97 buildings and Bass says it's just too big.
> 
> _Bass says both San Antonio and Oklahoma City already provide the company tax incentives, but no they didn't receive anything more to expand. *Bass says now that the decision is made, they will ask those communities for assistance*. :blink:  :no:_


We gave Bass Pro shops the ground and a ten year tax hiatus to build here and they've turned a profit since day 1. I have and will never set foot in one because of that. The prices they charge compared to any other sporting goods store here are ridiculous.

97 buildings and I think I've been in every one. :laughing:


----------



## LARMGUY (Aug 22, 2010)

etb said:


> Not unless I missed something. But that part is Spirit Aerosystems now, formed after the split around 2004 I think.
> 
> http://www.kwch.com/news/kwch-news-...ing-wichita-facility-20120104,0,4196078.story
> 
> http://www.kansas.com/2012/01/04/2162092/boeing-to-close-wichita-plant.html


 
From that last link you posted, it sounds as if this is a good excuse to close the doors in Wichita. Funny they announce just before a presidential and congressman election. If they really wanted to stay, they would have waited. The CEO refusing to meet with Kansas reps nailed those doors shut.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

LARMGUY said:


> Looks like OKC will get a shot of employees. That's good. *But this just peeees me off to no end !!!*. Multibillion dollar companies asking for tax incentives to cities they could buy and sell just to get some more employees to settle there. I know both facilities as I have worked installing and maintaining access control and CCTV in both.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
it can be mighty lonely standing on one's convictions Larmdude, but you've my respect for doing so:thumbsup:

~CS~


----------



## etb (Sep 8, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> because i'm servicing the rural contingent, i need to listen , as well as have a grasp on 'the math' etb
> 
> for instance, i've been a Home Power subscriber for over 2 decades now
> 
> ...


F yes, off with big oil subsidies. But capitalism will always control politics, and tilted gov't spending will necessarily come along for the ride. 

By "servicing" do you mean EMT or sparky? You seem to agree with my point, but yet you compare wind to AFCI and I know how you (and I) feel about that. So I've misunderstood why it is that you care. Are you saying that you know better, but that in one of your careers you "keep playing the game"?

That's a long time to be reading Home Power. I've never bothered to crack a cover because the couple articles I read from it (cited from somewhere else) were nothing but factless propaganda. Is it worth another look?


----------



## etb (Sep 8, 2010)

LARMGUY said:


> Looks like OKC will get a shot of employees. That's good. *But this just peeees me off to no end !!!*. Multibillion dollar companies asking for tax incentives to cities they could buy and sell just to get some more employees to settle there. I know both facilities as I have worked installing and maintaining access control and CCTV in both.


Obviously aviation folks and Wichitans are still sick at their stomachs. What little info available doesn't pass the smell test, let alone that kept under wraps. But that's how it is with anything, they're gonna do what they want, and then just try to minimize the PR damage.



LARMGUY said:


> From that last link you posted, it sounds as if this is a good excuse to close the doors in Wichita. Funny they announce just before a presidential and congressman election. If they really wanted to stay, they would have waited. The CEO refusing to meet with Kansas reps nailed those doors shut.


There is of course a lot more factors involved, but read any news on large corporates picking a city and it's the same story. Following the money like a high school senior making colleges compete with scholarship offers.

A' la:
http://www.kansas.com/2010/09/10/1485210/machinists-union-to-rally-friday.html

I can't say another word on that except that at least I'm not as sick as when Jack Pelton "retired". :shutup:



chicken steve said:


> it can be mighty lonely standing on one's convictions Larmdude, but you've my respect for doing so:thumbsup:
> 
> ~CS~


I used to say the same, and I unfortunately still stick to a few old diehards of my own. But when you look at the big picture, you have nowhere to run and nothing is going to change. A few years ago my cynicism with the world reached critical mass and exploded. Now I just do what eric does when he stumbles onto a Roseanne. :whistling2: Occasionally (often?), I still get disgusted though.


----------



## LARMGUY (Aug 22, 2010)

Damn we sure hijacked this thread... Sorry.


----------



## etb (Sep 8, 2010)

LARMGUY said:


> Damn we sure hijacked this thread... Sorry.


I was beginning to notice the same thing.

Ahhhem. In breaking news, regarding the OP, they've just brought online the largest wind farm in KS, flat ridge 2 they call it. A bit behind schedule, no thanks to the twister that went through in may that shredded some blades.

Found a representative pic


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

etb said:


> > F yes, off with big oil subsidies. But capitalism will always control politics, and tilted gov't spending will necessarily come along for the ride.
> 
> 
> capitalism=politics+media.....
> ...


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

etb said:


> > I used to say the same, and I unfortunately still stick to a few old diehards of my own. But when you look at the big picture, you have nowhere to run and nothing is going to change. A few years ago my cynicism with the world reached critical mass and exploded. Now I just do what eric does when he stumbles onto a Roseanne. :whistling2: Occasionally (often?), I still get disgusted though.
> 
> 
> it could be _worse _etb, you could run off to a remote rural location and become a reclusive iconoclast electrician in a yankee theme park atmosphere where chickens make more sense than humanity....:jester:~CS~


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

I have read that Spain has lots of renewable energy projects going and derives much of its power from them. 


#3 on the list...


----------



## nolabama (Oct 3, 2007)

macmikeman said:


> I have read that Spain has lots of renewable energy projects going and derives much of its power from them.
> 
> #3 on the list...


Has really crazy age of consent laws.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

nolabama said:


> Has really crazy age of consent laws.


13...


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

I am kinda close to sixty. I don't think that is gonna concern me much.......


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

Has about 25% unemployment too.


----------

