The hot button issue here in Madison, Wisconsin, is the siting and construction of new electric transmission lines. No one wants to live near a high-voltage line. I think we have enough generating capacity, but we need to move the power where its needed.

I'm doing a renovation right now (in new england), and we are about to install what will be the single largest photovoltaic aray in the county. 60k worth of panels, plus an evacuated-tube very large solar water-heating panel. The house will produce about as much electricity per year as it uses, perhaps even a bit more, and that is even figuring on using air-conditioning all summer.

The problem, of course, is that this situation highlights the reality: it's possible to generate a large percentage of our domestic electricity from pv, but most people couldn't afford it. Coastal and mountain areas could generate huge amounts of elecricity from wind, as well. On the coasts, politics are generally against it. For instance, here a large and well thought out design for a wind-farm in shallow waters was finally rejected, indirectly, by congress because Mass legislators in general and the governor did not support it. They did not support it because wealthy vacationers in general did not support it. Wealthy vacationers don't want to look at ugly wind-towers (NIMBY). They'd much prefer folks in appalachia look at ugly stripped mountain tops and wallow in flooded valleys (yes, definitely in their backyard, please). Those folks have little influence in congress.

Energy demands today, and into the future, will be the toughest political, economic, and environmental issue we all face. If you accept the premice that we have passed peak global oil production, as discussed in "The Long Emergency", then beginning preparation for an oiless future is obvious. So I must ask, "Why don't we see this topic every evening on the news?"

First, we (human beings) don't like to think about having to give up our unsustainable way of life. Second, Politicians don't get elected by giving bad news (unless it can be tied to the incumbant politician). Third, even if we accept that we will someday run out of oil, we don't know exactly when that will be.

I applaud you pnbrown. Not many people would drop 60K to go off-grid. Of course most don't even acknowledge the problem. DOLLARs will drive the machine. As long as most people have access to relatively cheap electricity there will be absolutely no push toward alternatives.

There is a windfarm off the coast of Atlantic City NJ. There's also a few windfarms in Pa. I think there's also one in West Virginia . The only problem I have with that is it kills alot of birds and bats.

Sarah, I've heard that the killing of birds etc by windmills is mostly a myth. Do you have other knowledge?

No need to applaud me, Russ, it's not my money (I couldn't not possibly afford to do that - I'd quit using juice before I spent that kind of money), and believe it or not, it will not liberate them from the grid. It's a "grid-tie" system, so if the grid power goes down, the solar array must automatically disconnect so as not to electrocute repairmen. Gird-tie and stand-alone systems do not mesh well.

As it happens, we are intstalling panels on the roof today.

It's not a myth but I think that it can be minimized by the type of windmill used avoiding major migration flyways and possibly not running them during migration I'm not sure I know there's alot of talk on the Pa list serve. Here's a link to american bird conservancy policy on wind energy.

I'm sure many more birds are killed just by suburban sprawl and destruction of their habitat and use of pesticides.

Wind in general has an enormous effect on birds , Last friday was extremely windy here. The temperature was 19 degrees I looked out my kitchen window and a rufous hummingbird was there trying to get nectar from a frozen feeder. I'm sure the wind blew her here from the pacific northwest where she was probably born

Here is a link that might be useful: AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY WIND ENERGY POLICY

Migrating birds are killed in large numbers every year from collisions with high towers and the guy wires that brace them. Since tower building began with radio, in the 1920's, there is an accumulation of history on this issue. Because no one likes to hear about bird-kill, these events tend not to be reported. Here in Madison, a few years ago, a bird-kill event was reported by someone out for a walk who happened to see something that he wasn't supposed to. This amounts to bad press for the local tv station, the owner of the tower. It might be possible to build windmills that turn slowly, and have blades large enough for birds to see and avoid. To my knowledge, no one is doing this. Such a design would be vulnerable to damage from high winds, and more expensive per KWH.

Here's an article about golden eagles and windfarms was on the Pa bird listserv

Here is a link that might be useful: Golden eagles, wind farms on collision course?

A few thoughts... I believe energy conservation (judicious usage, plus high-efficiency usage methods and tech) - in addition to establishing more in the way of renewable sources like solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal power - can help a great deal. These come under the approach called the Soft Energy Path by physicist Amory Lovins.

In the UK last summer I saw many huge wind-turbine installations, sometimes as "wind farms", especially along the coasts. The large turbines have very large and slow-turning blades, and people with knowledge about the installations told me that birds are rarely killed by them, though in some places bats do seem to be attracted (and sometimes injured or killed) for some reason.

I've sometimes contemplated the sacrifices people and industies made (due to gov't rationing policies as well as felt necessity and patriotism) that people in the Allied countries made to get through World War II. Think, for example, of the "victory gardens." I'm sure people and corporations would not stand for rationing policies now, in our peacetime environment. But the example suggests what our range of human capabilities are. Raising public consciousness and concern (in part to pressure industry) would seem to be a key with conservation.

Joel

Here's a link for a recent article by Amory Lovins.

His analysis says that much more coal displacement can be obtained, dime for dime, through investment in energy-use conservation and microenergy production than can be obtained through investment in nuclear power plants.

Here is a link that might be useful: Lovins energy investment article

Wind turbines have been pretty tough on the raptor population here in CA. I'm much more excited about the possibility of learning from wind turbines technology applying it towards creating ocean turbines in the Pacific.

Wave power can spin magnets (like all turbines) to create electricity directly (which requires a netwotk of cables for transmission) or it can be used for electrolysis of seawater to create hydrogen gas, it the US can ever get the hydrogen fuel cell to be practical.

Wave power devices extract energy directly from surface waves or from pressure fluctuations below the surface. Renewable energy analysts believe there is enough energy in the ocean waves to provide up to 2 terawatts of electricity. (A terawatt is equal to a trillion watts.)

Offshore systems are situated in deep water, typically of more than 40 meters (131 feet). Sophisticated mechanismsÂlike the Salter DuckÂuse the bobbing motion of the waves to power a pump that creates electricity. Other offshore devices use hoses connected to floats that ride the waves. The rise and fall of the float stretches and relaxes the hose, which pressurizes the water, which, in turn, rotates a turbine.

Specially built seagoing vessels can also capture the energy of offshore waves. These floating platforms create electricity by funneling waves through internal turbines and then back into the sea.

Built along shorelines, onshore wave power systems extract the energy in breaking waves. Onshore system technologies include the following:

Oscillating water column
The oscillating water column consists of a partially submerged concrete or steel structure that has an opening to the sea below the waterline. It encloses a column of air above a column of water. As waves enter the air column, they cause the water column to rise and fall. This alternately compresses and depressurizes the air column. As the wave retreats, the air is drawn back through the turbine as a result of the reduced air pressure on the ocean side of the turbine.

Tapchan
The tapchan, or tapered channel system, consists of a tapered channel, which feeds into a reservoir constructed on cliffs above sea level. The narrowing of the channel causes the waves to increase in height as they move toward the cliff face. The waves spill over the walls of the channel into the reservoir and the stored water is then fed through a turbine.

Pendulor device
The pendulor wave-power device consists of a rectangular box, which is open to the sea at one end. A flap is hinged over the opening and the action of the waves causes the flap to swing back and forth. The motion powers a hydraulic pump and a generator.

Clearly, we can't keep burning carbon-based fuels.

Dicot... thanks for that. Interesting stuff, and I've been looking to get some basic information on the tidal/wave-power thing. Sources I've found on the Web are often scattered or meager, so it seemed hard to get any sort of overview.

I was in Scotland and England late last summer, and while touring around with British aquaintances (looking at wind turbines), half of these people seemed more enthusiastic about the possibilities of tidal power.

Joel

dicot, I hope you're still coming to this forum & thread. I wanted to e-mail you, but you (like me) haven't got your e-mail address on your GW page. If you're interested in e-mail discussion about renewable energy & related stuff, please say so here. I'm thinking we could each post our e-mail addresses briefly on My Page, and be able to get in touch. (I'm likely to remove my address from the page, after that.)

Joel

Most people cannot replace their energy needs with solar, wind, water, because they are using too much energy in the first place.

pnbrown,
You would have been better off spending some or all of the 60k for solar panels on creating a house that does not need A/C in the summer, i.e. high interior thermal mass, overhangs on southern windows, extra insulation.

Rather than trying to install enough solar panels to run your electric dryer, why not install a $5 clothesline.

I took a class in college in which we did studies on various alternate forms of energy generation methods. Electricity generating windmills were found in general to never repay their initial cost of materials. That is, the energy used up to build your windmill, install it and run power lines to your house will never be regained, especially when it breaks down in a few years. You would have been better off just using that energy directly to power your household needs.

If you struggle, you will only sink faster. You can only escape by removing what is causing you to sink.

Read posts more carefully, Buff, saves embarassment.

Not my house, I'm a contractor. I have no control over what other people do with their money. I don't know if pv panels return the total energy expended in their production and installation, though I suspect they do return it some times over.

I agree though, alternative energies are not going to be the primary solution to the energy problem, conservation will be, voluntary or not.

buffburd, I think many or perhaps all of us on this thread agree with the importance of the energy-conservation idea. In fact, up the thread, someone wrote about "energy conservation (judicious usage, plus high-efficiency usage methods and tech)" as important in itself, and/or as part of a more general "soft energy path."

And I also agree with pnbrown about reading the thread more carefully before posting. Your post reads a bit like contradiction, whereas you're among basically like-minded people here.

Joel

Joel, I recently installed a very affordable and effective energy-saving gizmo that might interest you. It's a heat-exchanger for drain water, particularly from showers. It's a piece of copper drain pipe tightly wrapped with smaller-diameter flex copper tubing. The hot drain water sheets down the inner pipe, and transfers some of it's heat to the the incoming cold feed to the water-heater which is routed through the outer coil.

Not expensive in the scale of things, and only takes a few hours to install.

Hi, pn. Sounds quite interesting. Thanks for mentioning it. Can you provide a link to a site that shows/describes the gizmo?

Joel

Search for "GFX" and I think you'll find their website.

Buffburd,

A 5 dollar clothesline won't seem like such a great idea in the middle of a snowstorm in New England. I think I'd stick with the electric dryer.

Of course, the amount of energy you are using by searching internet forums on your computer could be replaced by doing research at a library, or having conversations in real life instead of online.

We all use energy for our convenience, be it the computer or the dryer. We need to use less. We know that. But if I could create my own energy for my own use, what's wrong with that? At least the guy isn't building a personal-sized coal plant in his customer's backyard.