On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 23:42:23 -0600, Dan Minette wrote: >>Yes, my number was high. I was likely remembering a projected number. >>But, to be fair, your data source is 2 years old. Wind capacity in the US has >>close to doubled in that time. > >Are you sure, > >at > >http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004691.html > >I obtained the following historical trend > >1989 7034.4 MWh >1990 9379.2 MWh >1991 9379.2 MWh >1992 8793 MWh >1993 9086.1 MWh >1994 10551.6 MWh >1995 9672.3 MWh >1996 10258.5 MWh >1997 9672.3 MWh >1998 9086.1 MWh >1999 13482.6 MWh >2000 14948.1 MWh >2001 17586 MWh >2002 2931 MWh > > >2002 is very low because it is just for the first quarter. However, there >is absolutely no indication of higher usage in 2002 than in 2001, since >4x2931 < 17586. It seems to me that the two-year increase is no more than >about 30%. The two big jumps coincided with tax breaks, so that's not >surprising.
http://www.awea.org/faq/instcap.html http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/14061/newsDate/17-Jan-2002/st ory.htm http://dallas.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2002/04/22/daily7.html I don't have 2002 numbers. www.awea.com has a list of projects somewhere. Consumption never adds up to capacity. Even the data you cited with the .05% number listed generated electricity as .13%. It is growing so fast, I imagine alot of them are not fully comissioned or have found customers for the electricity yet. Texas seems to be the big mover in the US right now. I guess you do do everything big :) >>But, is overall efficiency improving as oil becomes harder to find and >>more energy intensive to extract ? > >Actually, it is far less energy intensive to extract than it was 20 years >ago. :-) Cool! >>Or are we more efficiently depleting a non-renewable resource. This is >>good news only as long as there are no alternatives. > >It is nonrenewable, but will probably last another 100 years, at the >present growth rate. Then there is coal and, then shale after that. Yes, >we do need to come up with alternatives, but I'd argue we need to do real >research now, instead of trying to commercialize stuff that isn't really >ready. >We do have a very environmentally friendly alternative, but it is not PC, >so it is being phased out, alas. No global warming, a strong safety record >in the West. True. The *potential* disaster is why most people fear it. >>>I can understand that. But, let me point out, its not immediate. I'm >>>probably a bit older than you. I remember the PR for these technologies >>>being about the same for the last 30 years. So, I look for an >>>indication of real new technology advances. When I don't see them, I tend >>>to conclude that this is just more of the same. >>Over that 30 years, the cost of producing energy from wind and solar has >>reduced by a factor of 10. is this due to PR?. > >Actually, yes. Let us look at solar costs from: > >http://www.solarbuzz.com/StatsCosts.htm > >A wonderful graph, showing a factor of 4 reduction in 17 years is given. >According to the graph, the costs were $6000 per kWp in 98, and to reduce >to about $4000 in 2001. But, in reality, the costs were $8000-$10000 per >kWp in 2001. So, the factor of 4 was really a factor of 2. Plus, they >give the month by month trend over the last 2 1/3 years elsewhere at the >website: showing a slight rise in prices over that time. Solar, A factor of 4 in 17 years is fair. A definitive source is hard to find. This one says a factor of 5 over 15 years http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articles/Potential.PDF This one says 20 fold but doesn't give a time frame. http://starfire.ne.uiuc.edu/~ne201/1996/jmbradle/ This one says 99% from 1972-1992 http://www.nr.state.ky.us/nrepc/dnr/energy/doePhotovoltaics.html These ones says 100 fold since 1972. http://www.nrel.gov/hot-stuff/press/1999/299phys.html http://whyfiles.org/041solar/main1.html I don't find this hard to believe. Up until 1972 PV's were used almost exclusively on spacecraft. now there is 1000's of mW installed on earth. High volume brings manufacturing costs way down. Wind from $.40/kwh in the 80's to $.05/kwh today http://www.worldmarketsanalysis.com/InFocus2002/articles/energy_renewable.html I extrapolated a bit. We were talking about a 30 year time frame. >>Meanwhile, the average SUV gets 15mpg. The model T Ford got 23mpg. This >>is not progress, this is a better example of what PR can do. I had the >>privilege of riding in a '08 Model T once. Quicker and nimbler than you might >>expect for a 20hp engine (are you still sure your older than me? :-). >You might be my age, but then you would remember the 50 mpg cars that >existed in 1979. I owned one of them: a diesel rabbit. SUVs are big >monsters that get low milage...plus the pollution controls cut gas milage >significantly. For the record I am 38. The Ford Focus is the most popular car in the world. You've mentioned this before so I have to ask. Do you advocate removing pollution controls from cars to improve efficiency? >>When I first saw "compressed air" I said hey!, thats real! Its not cold >>fusion, zero-point energy, or ORMUS. I'll leave the details of making it work >>to the engineers. > >Well, I am both a scientist and engineer. More of a scientist I would bet. Hence your preference for pure research. >>If you do have a breakthrough while researching a potentially lucrative >>application, I imagine you would do this for your fellow engineers and >>investors, but I don't think you would advertise it before you launch >>your product. >They were doing a launch. And yes, I did it at launches and even before >launches. They were doing PR (ya got me :-) to attract investors most likely. They obviously were not ready to launch. >>More PR. Your largest assumption being that the tank will fragment into >>1cm chunks. Compressed gas storage is old tech. And can be made safer today >>with new materials and design tools. >Safe, sure. But collision safe? What happens when it gets hit at 15 mph? Hopefully it will burst while letting nothing but the air out. >>I would like to hear one example of a "PR" project that was brought to >>market while bypassing all regulatory safety requirements. > >He's not selling them in the US, right? What is the regulatory >environment in South Africa. I'm guessing its not a coincidece that he is >going there first. Could be. But their first plant is in France, and I did read one article that mentioned a plant would be in New York state. >>Meanwhile, the big 3 auto manufacturers have a long history of putting cars >>on the road with known safety problems and perpetuating the myth that the >>heavier a vehicle is, the safer it is. > >Well, if it is a myth, then why have my kids been hit several times and >hardly noticed it in our conversion van? About 10 years ago I was in a head-on accident in my Suzuki Sidekick. I walked away with a sprained ankle and seatbelt bruises. But this doesn't really mean anything. This seems like an honest analysis. http://enews.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/EETD-SUV-Safety.html >>My guess would be that any company that wants public acceptance of its >product >>would be concerned with safety. > >Not necessarily. Lets look at solar energy. It is clear to me that the >death rate per unit of energy for home solar power must be much higher than >any other power source. Falls cause 13,000 deaths a year. Solar energy >requires people to get on the roof from time to time, representing a >significant risk of falling. Nuclear, on the other hand, has a near >spotless record in the West. In the USSR, where safety was job >1,384,385,134,144,431, approximately 200 people were killed in a very well >publicized accident. Thats a stretch. This makes about as much sense as saying that grocery stores are hazardous because of all the people who have been killed in car accidents on their way to the grocery store. If you are saying that it is one more reason to get on the roof, then that argument calls for immediate action against deciduous trees, tv antennas, frisbees and cats. People who wouldn't normally fix their own shingles, won't fix their own solar panels either. And not everyone who has solar panels on their roof will need to access them often. They need little maintenance. I don't think the 13,000 number represents falls from roofs. Heres some numbers. http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm There were fewer fall deaths from ladders than there were from beds, chairs and other furniture. There were also 7989 unspecified falls. The elderly seem to make up a large part of this statistic. hmmm...also on this page it shows that fewer people were killed by explosion and rupture of pressurized devices than were struck by lightning :) >People are really weird about safety; they swallow camels and strain at >gnats. Yes, I worked at a company with an out of control safety commitee. I was also the radiation safety officer. Protecting the public from the 370 MBq nickel-63 source in a chromatograph we had. :) Dean _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
