Comments on: ‘Green’ Wind, ‘Smart’ Grid–A Thought Experiment and a Policy Proposal for the Environmental Left

By: Scott Brooks

Scott Brooks — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 03:09:18 +0000

Phil;

The link has changed:

http://www.verdereformation.com/

Haven’t figured out how/where they can get all that hydrogen from. Originally the Fisher-Tropsch process got it from coal.

By: Tom Stacy

Tom Stacy — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:35:38 +0000

John, I like your fable just fine the way it is. You asked, so I will tell you. There is one benefit to wind power; it’s size. There are way too many other boondoggles in the world that go unnoticed because they are inconspicuous!

By: Aussie Pete

Aussie Pete — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:00:58 +0000

Perhaps ZIP is an offshoot of Bernie Maddoff Inc.
I wish I had thought of it myself. Build a couple of wind turbines and sell their output combined with huge amounts of conventional power bought at market prices from other suppliers, (who is going to check?)
The Ecofacists of course will allow you to sell it at a premium, because of your noble intentions, so a nice little earner is created!!! Then add the billion or so stimulus you need to get operational before the whole thing fails, and then scuttle off to join your ill-gotten gains in Switzerland or wherever.

By: Jon Boone

Jon Boone — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 03:30:24 +0000

There is much make work for engineers with so-called renewable technologies, in the process creating Rube Goldbergesque systems that actually subvert their reason for being. When engineers enable political tree swing “solutions” to appease asinine notions of the greater good, they are no different than plumbers or electricians who inflate their incomes by gerry-rigging byzantine utility systems far beyond what is called for.

Engineers are not scientists. The best of them solve problems with elegant aplomb; the worst create more problems, taking money from both the clients they bilk and the society that hires them to fix the mess they “engineered” in the first place.

By: John Droz

John Droz — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 22:56:07 +0000

Kuhnkat:

There are small numbers of scientists that believe in all sorts of far-fetched things.

Engineers, unfortunately, mayhave an incentive to do something for the challange of it.

What I am advocating is to use the scientific method — a PROCESS that is assured of coming up with good answers.

By: kuhnkat

kuhnkat — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 22:11:18 +0000

“My Pollyanna vision is that complex technical matters should be solved by science.”

why would you want to leave technical decisions in the hands of people who believe in things like Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Evolution, AGW/GCC…

How about leaving it up to the technicians/engineers who actually build commercial applications??

By: Jon Boone

Jon Boone — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 18:37:03 +0000

Of course, ZIP could also allude to VIP, an imaginary product that moved the plot along in the 1961 film, Lover Come Back, where Rock Hudson, to keep his job as an ad man, invents VIP in order to placate an avenging Doris Day. The movie is perhaps the best of this genre and, in my view, a terrific spoof on the way PR works to sell soap, even fantasy soap like wind.

Some years ago, I discounted using “zephyr” because it is a word for light and inconsequential. Instead, I chose “wayward,” which connotes something more sinister, much like how a willful child can disturb an entire community, creating far-reaching ripples while utterly clueless about the consequence of his or her behavior.

Industrial wind, as John suggests, has only negative consequence. Indeed, it is dysfunctional on the whole, since any desultory production must make compensatory systems less efficient, increasing both the financial cost and the thermal activity all around.

It’s the dumbest modern energy idea imaginable.

By: John Droz

John Droz — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 17:42:24 +0000

Phil:

Thank you for your good comments.

Regarding “Zephyr Integrated Power,” I was trying to avoid attacking a specific company, so made one up.

I like the word “Zephyr”, due to its play on wind energy: “The west wind. A gentle breeze. Something that is airy, insubstantial, or passing.”

In addition I liked the acronym. What better way to describe many current solutions, as providing us ZIP?

regards,

john droz, jr.

By: Phil Nakata

Phil Nakata — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 08:58:59 +0000

When I first caught your reference to Zephyr Power as wind power, I thought you were referring to Zephyr Alternative Power that uses a small bi-directional spool design to create ~50 KW of power, and looks similar to the solar powered sewing-spool-like units powering the sign on Times Square (referencing one of the History Channel’s ‘Life After People’ series).

However, if it is the program referenced by this link (http://www.transcanada.com/pdf/company/Chinook_Zephyr_brochure_LR.PDF), then it is a big windmills project that is really scary to consider, especially as we (the U.S.) are at such a disadvantage from the economies of scale to make it a cost effective solution (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/business/energy-environment/31renew.html).

Think anyone’s interested in really solving the problem? How about another approach? What would you think of a technology that reforms synthetic petroleum counterparts from carbon and water (as H2 and O2, versus emulsification), uses only 6 KW of power, produces no emissions or waste water but only emission-free fuels, and release no free carbon, nitrates, sulfates or chlorides, that are all bound chemically to the mineral of the fertilizer solids – thus also returning the original mineral nutrients to the earth – syngasrefining (.com).

At 10X the productivity and 1/5 the cost of competitive gasifier alternatives that are already well-known to be more efficient than wind or solar – who would vote against something like that and not get in trouble with the public? – if they knew, right?

On the other hand, they (the politicians) did steer everyone away from methanol, saying it was less safe on a political agenda, and everyone bought that one, especially when they said it was also less efficient…. compared to what? It is more toxic than ethanol, but not less than gasoline, and surely less flammable (that why it is required for race cars)… it also does not do so well with aluminum vs. steel tanks …. and yet with more than an abundant supply and a cost between $0.60-$1.00 per gallon, even getting only 70% of the energy or power value, it’s a steal in overall value compared to more volatile and polluting high performance fuels we got sold.

Accordingly, if the combined price of corn (vs. the stock where half the oil and all the minerals are) and the processing of it to make ethanol weren’t sufficiently high enough to be competitive at the higher prices we are seeing today, then I’m sure you’d agree that the energy industry would have found something ‘wrong’ about using ethanol too.

And this is why social media is so important… so people can hear / share from other very knowledgable and reputable people who’ve seen such technologies, and though they may provide different personal explanations for how they think it works, all conclude that it takes a certain output and creates a consistent output of synthetic fuels in this case, that is equal to the combined weight of the organic waste and it’s moisture, while creating no pollution – How else can such ‘disruptive’ technologies like this have any hope of being implemented in time to make a difference?

Thanks John, for your watchdog approach to glossy projects…