E
Edward Dike
Guest
Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
| Sun, 12 Jan 2003 04:31:09 GMT, <[email protected]>, "Buck" <j u n k m
| a i l @ g a l a x y c o r p . c o m> wrote:
|
| >"Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| >news:[email protected]...
| >
| ><snip>
| >
| >> Reducing consumption would be a good place to start. I think Californians showed it could be
| >> done during the rolling black-outs. (Whether or not there was ever a real power shortage is
| >> mixed up somewhere with Enron's and the Bushies' criminal activities)
| >
| >The rolling blackouts were good evidence that reducing consumption is not enough. When that
| >debacle was happening, other states were unwilling to
send
| >additional power because they still had to meet demand in their own local areas.
| >
| >
| >> Natural gas is non renewable and it's not as clean as the lobbyists
will
| >> have us believe.
| >
| >Agreed
| >
| >
| >> Wind power has the greatest widespread potential for a pollution-free renewable energy source.
| >> The technology to do this has been here for years.
| >
| >Let me quote an oft-quoted article by Allan M.R. MacRae:
| >
| >"Of course, wind doesn't blow all the time - wind power works best as a small part of an
| >electrical distribution system, where other sources
provide
| >the base and peak power. Although wind power has made recent gains, it
will
| >probably remain a small contributor to our overall energy needs. A 1,000-megawatt wind farm would
| >cover a land area of 1,036 square
kilometres,
| >while the same-size surface coal mine and power plant complex covers
about
| >36 square kilometres. Wind farms cover a much bigger area, are visible
for
| >miles due to the height of the towers and kill large numbers of birds."
| >
| >
| >
| >Assuming he is correct, then we can figure how much land area is needed
to
| >generate enough electricity to cover California's consumption in 2001 (265,059 gw). Let's see,
| >265,059 gw = 265,059,000 mw. If the wind were steadily blowing, you would need 255,848 sqkm to
| >generate that
electricity.
| >That works out to 98,783 sqmi. The state of California has 155,973 sqmi
of
| >land area. Assuming all of it were usable for wind generation, then 63%
of
| >the total land area of California would be needed to generate the electricity it used two
| >years ago.
| >
| >
| >
| >Doesn't look like such a great alternative, does it?
|
| Consider the source:
|
| http://www.frankmag.net/storydetails.asp?storyid=170 <quote>
|
| Then there's Allan M.R. MacRae, identified by the paper as "a professional engineer, investment
| banker and environmentalist." Sounds like a real ecologist, eh? Whoops! Overlooked that little
| detail about Al being a longtime oil exec. and former president and CEO of Odyssey Petroleum Corp.
| (The firm was sold to Melrose Resources plc in 1999.) Remind us, please, precisely what are Al's
| "scientific" credentials? We know his biz rap sheet: "...a professional engineer, Mr. MacRae has
| 27 years experience in the oil and gas, engineering and management consulting businesses. From
| 1984 to 1996, Mr. MacRae was employed by Canadian Occidental Petroleum Limited, holding positions
| in the international, Canadian and oil sands divisions. From 1996 until joining Odyssey, Mr.
| MacRae worked with a major US-based multinational on international oil acquisitions." <\quote>
|
| A totally unbiased source, eh.
|
| Try these guys for more credible views of the issues you've supporting with atomic industry flak
| and "anti-environmentalist" propaganda from the likes of "Slippery Mac"
|
| http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/index.cfm
|
| >-Buck
| >
|
| --
| zk
A bit off topic, but what are the thoughts on this thing?
http://www.wentworth.nsw.gov.au/solartower/
It came up on rec.aviation.soaring
ED3
| Sun, 12 Jan 2003 04:31:09 GMT, <[email protected]>, "Buck" <j u n k m
| a i l @ g a l a x y c o r p . c o m> wrote:
|
| >"Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| >news:[email protected]...
| >
| ><snip>
| >
| >> Reducing consumption would be a good place to start. I think Californians showed it could be
| >> done during the rolling black-outs. (Whether or not there was ever a real power shortage is
| >> mixed up somewhere with Enron's and the Bushies' criminal activities)
| >
| >The rolling blackouts were good evidence that reducing consumption is not enough. When that
| >debacle was happening, other states were unwilling to
send
| >additional power because they still had to meet demand in their own local areas.
| >
| >
| >> Natural gas is non renewable and it's not as clean as the lobbyists
will
| >> have us believe.
| >
| >Agreed
| >
| >
| >> Wind power has the greatest widespread potential for a pollution-free renewable energy source.
| >> The technology to do this has been here for years.
| >
| >Let me quote an oft-quoted article by Allan M.R. MacRae:
| >
| >"Of course, wind doesn't blow all the time - wind power works best as a small part of an
| >electrical distribution system, where other sources
provide
| >the base and peak power. Although wind power has made recent gains, it
will
| >probably remain a small contributor to our overall energy needs. A 1,000-megawatt wind farm would
| >cover a land area of 1,036 square
kilometres,
| >while the same-size surface coal mine and power plant complex covers
about
| >36 square kilometres. Wind farms cover a much bigger area, are visible
for
| >miles due to the height of the towers and kill large numbers of birds."
| >
| >
| >
| >Assuming he is correct, then we can figure how much land area is needed
to
| >generate enough electricity to cover California's consumption in 2001 (265,059 gw). Let's see,
| >265,059 gw = 265,059,000 mw. If the wind were steadily blowing, you would need 255,848 sqkm to
| >generate that
electricity.
| >That works out to 98,783 sqmi. The state of California has 155,973 sqmi
of
| >land area. Assuming all of it were usable for wind generation, then 63%
of
| >the total land area of California would be needed to generate the electricity it used two
| >years ago.
| >
| >
| >
| >Doesn't look like such a great alternative, does it?
|
| Consider the source:
|
| http://www.frankmag.net/storydetails.asp?storyid=170 <quote>
|
| Then there's Allan M.R. MacRae, identified by the paper as "a professional engineer, investment
| banker and environmentalist." Sounds like a real ecologist, eh? Whoops! Overlooked that little
| detail about Al being a longtime oil exec. and former president and CEO of Odyssey Petroleum Corp.
| (The firm was sold to Melrose Resources plc in 1999.) Remind us, please, precisely what are Al's
| "scientific" credentials? We know his biz rap sheet: "...a professional engineer, Mr. MacRae has
| 27 years experience in the oil and gas, engineering and management consulting businesses. From
| 1984 to 1996, Mr. MacRae was employed by Canadian Occidental Petroleum Limited, holding positions
| in the international, Canadian and oil sands divisions. From 1996 until joining Odyssey, Mr.
| MacRae worked with a major US-based multinational on international oil acquisitions." <\quote>
|
| A totally unbiased source, eh.
|
| Try these guys for more credible views of the issues you've supporting with atomic industry flak
| and "anti-environmentalist" propaganda from the likes of "Slippery Mac"
|
| http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/index.cfm
|
| >-Buck
| >
|
| --
| zk
A bit off topic, but what are the thoughts on this thing?
http://www.wentworth.nsw.gov.au/solartower/
It came up on rec.aviation.soaring
ED3