Wind energy sweeps plains; course correction in order?

Given the large size and scale of the projected wind farm towers, it would be wise for the New Mexico state legislature to seriously consider regulations for these 400 foot towers. Consideration should be given to placement, including proximity to existing communities, effects on local wildlife and viewscapes, access to large powerlines and infrastructure, and statuates regarding construction. Right now, rural counties with uninformed and under educated planning commissions are making decisions that can affect areas permanently and ruin peoples land values and lifestyles. It is time that the state take control of this increasingly important issue.

"It is time that the state take control of this increasingly important issue."

Supposition that the state of New Mexico is utitilzing individuals' advice who have expertise and ability in the area of electric power generation is suspect.

We recommended that the state 1 Contract with NM geologists to attemp to forecast future BTUs available for electricity generation 2 Establish a board of those qualified to evaluate whether proposed solar or wind electric generation technologies are a scam or not.

http://home.comcast.net/~bpayne37/pnmelectric...

There is a LOT OF MONEY to be made developing and selling alternate generation facilities to those who do not understand the laws of thermodynamics, HEAT RATE, and CAPACITY FACTOR.

From actual experience, wind farms produce 1.2 watts per square meter. Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic methods capture 5 to 6 watts per square meter. There is no economy of size in either technology. Dividing the watts you need by those values gives the land area in square meters needed to produce the juice. The numbers are astronomical

The paper's opinion seems to be that one of the biggest drawbacks to wind turbines is that they are unslightly, or even a "disruption of scenery some consider sacred." But without some sort of context to who thinks they're unslightly, possibly a neighbor who doesn't benefit from land lease revenue, or somebody who demands only sagebrush when they look over a BLM landscape, it's hard to take this seriously.
America's energy needs will continue to grow, a fact that is undeniable. By throwing up roadblocks based on the aesthetic objections to an energy source only ensures that we will always be playing catch-up.

It is madness to run head-on into this form of "alternative" ( a buzz word mistakenly taken as 'better') energy. Once again, it is all about the money. Is it more acceptable if you get the lease check and watch the environment degrade? Wind energy is going to turn out to be one of the LEAST enviro- friendly forms of energy: 40' concrete bases underground, 400' towers, lights, noise, roads between every tower, and did we mention those HUGE transmission lines required to take it to urban areas ( at the expense of the rural environment )so all those people can plug in their 3rd TV or turn their offices into walk-in coolers when its over 80 degrees outside? And in other areas, people experimenting with putting their power on a wind-powered grid find it often a net energy loss since the wind turbines actually require a secondary energy source when the wind is not adequate...and why are our energy demands increasing? Could it be the world's population growth? Why doesn't anyone want to talk about this? It's madness!

After reading this article, I felt the author danced around what he was trying to say. I also felt he was riding the wave of the recent negative article on how residents expressed their dislike of a wind farm near their land, <after> it was built. As with any development, there should be planning -- the State should begin designating areas for wind farms, let the public have their say, and allow wind farmers their opportunity.
PS: There is a typo in the 9th paragraph. News Orgs need to edit their products.

Has anyone considered the impact of solar farms on the local climate? I'm wondering if the conversion of a fairly reflective desert surface to one with a much higher absorption factor is going to significantly increase the unusable energy capture in the form of waste heat. The equation would involve (neglecting life-cycle manufacturing and disposal of the machinery) Useful electrical energy obtained (via thermal or PV) minus the increased unwanted heat captured that would have been otherwise been reflected back into space.
I think we need some really smart folks doing some math on all of the alternatives, including the legacy supplies, if we're going to hope to make any real progress. There would also need to be controls put in place to keep out the politics of business. Ethanol ought to be the poster child for making stupid energy policy decisions.

fast neutron wrote:

From actual experience, wind farms produce 1.2 watts per square meter. Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic methods capture 5 to 6 watts per square meter. There is no economy of size in either technology. Dividing the watts you need by those values gives the land area in square meters needed to produce the juice. The numbers are astronomical

Is that correct? I know that when the sun is out full, that it delivers around 1000 watts per. Divide that by 2 (for day and night) and multiply by 80%(for cloud cover) gives an average of 400 watts per square meter.

That means solar is only 1.25% efficient? Pretty ****-poor if that is really true.

Your govenor supports wind energy and I do to in your state and all the others. I think they are beautiful. Vehicles driving down the road take out more..(whats the New Mexico state bird?) in the grille. Anyway, just teach the locals to think of it as a nice big fan.

We need some Germans!

North Dakota should be covered in windmills.

Wind map: http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_maps....

Matt wrote:

North Dakota should be covered in windmills.
Wind map: http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_maps....

As wind generation in NM it looks promising down the center spine of the state and the far southern high plains area. Good economic resource and the state could sell the electricity to other states that need the power and get some money for the state government. Is your governor and other political officials aware of this untapped resource?

Jimaam wrote:

<quoted text>
Right, but if one wind turbine puts out 1 megawatt (which is really pushing it), it takes nearly 1000 of them for make up for one coal-fired power plant. Problem is, and I am in Kansas right now with zero wind (a beautiful night by the way). What do you do then?

thermal

More fast neutron-type data.

HOW MUCH ENERGY IS IN?....

Energy Source Energy Content (Btu) Units
Sunlight 200 Btu per hour per square foot
Wind 75 Btu per hour per square foot of wind turbine swept area in 22 mile per hour wind.
Biomass 7,000 Btu
per pound (value is for switchgrass)

Wood 8,000 to 10,000 Btu per pound
Coal (Anthracite) 14,000 to 15,000 Btu per pound
Coal (Bituminous) 10,500 to 14,000 Btu per pound
Oil (#2 Fuel) 137,000-141,800 Btu per gallon
Natural Gas 950 to 1,150 Btu per cubic foot
Gasoline 109,000 -125,000 Btu per gallon
Kerosene 130,000 to 140,000 Btu per gallon
Nuclear Fuel (Uranium) 35,000,000,000 Btu per pound Uranium-235

http://smartenergy.arch.uiuc.edu/html/what_En...

Google 'scripting languages pollute' for New Mexico coal pollution pics.

Are you seriously suggesting geothermal in Kansas?

harlz wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting geothermal in Kansas?

http://geothermal.marin.org/geopresentation/s...

Best output we have obtained with 50o solar panel angle appears to both produce maximum 15.30 volts and power measured by 13.10 IR drop accross 50 ohm resistor. 13.1 / 50 =.262 amps..262 *.262 * 50 = 3.4322 watts.
Our panel is about 1.42 sq ft.
1 square meter = 10.7639104 square feet.
10.7639104 / 1.42 = 7.58.
.262 * 7.58 = 1.98569 amps by parallel connected solar panels.
1.98569 * 1.98569 * 50 = 197.15 watts
This does not agree with fast neutron stated values. Further investigation is necessary.
... 1 sq. metre of panels exposed to the full sun will generate 120W to 125W of electricity.
We are using a monocrystalline panel which apparently is the most efficient.
Monocrystalline 'panels typically retail at between $10.00 and $11.00 per watt.'
Harbor Freight 5 W panel cost $39.99.
We are dealing with not-so-useful watts of about 15 volts at peak driving into 50 ohms.
Let's hold-off judgments on fast neutron's posting.
We are investigating through experimentation and computation as opposed to acceptance of written information to determine veracity of solar generation of electricity claims.
google 'scripting languages pollute' to pick up link to china solar

Hello Ms Matlock,

Do you know who

fast neutron
Santa Fe, NM
January 12, 2009

From actual experience, wind farms produce 1.2 watts per square meter. Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic methods capture 5 to 6 watts per square meter. There is no economy of size in either technology. Dividing the watts you need by those values gives the land area in square meters needed to produce the juice. The numbers are astronomical

http://www.topix.net/forum/source/santa-fe-ne...

is?

I would like to talk fast neutron about his above post.

My wife and I plan attend the sante fe river event tomorrow starting about 12:00.

You might enjoy my webinar comments.

http://home.comcast.net/~bpayne37/solar/energ...

Energy is an area of interest, not expertise or ability.

Here http://home.comcast.net/~bpayne37/solar/energ... hopefully is an area of interest, expertise and ability.

Hope to meet you tomorrow.

Historic meeting place. Near the Klaus Fuchs bridge!

bill

bill payne37 wrote:

Best output we have obtained with 50o solar panel angle appears to both produce maximum 15.30 volts and power measured by 13.10 IR drop accross 50 ohm resistor. 13.1 / 50 =.262 amps..262 *.262 * 50 = 3.4322 watts.
Our panel is about 1.42 sq ft.
1 square meter = 10.7639104 square feet.
10.7639104 / 1.42 = 7.58.
.262 * 7.58 = 1.98569 amps by parallel connected solar panels.
1.98569 * 1.98569 * 50 = 197.15 watts
This does not agree with fast neutron stated values. Further investigation is necessary.
... 1 sq. metre of panels exposed to the full sun will generate 120W to 125W of electricity.
We are using a monocrystalline panel which apparently is the most efficient.
Monocrystalline 'panels typically retail at between $10.00 and $11.00 per watt.'
Harbor Freight 5 W panel cost $39.99.
We are dealing with not-so-useful watts of about 15 volts at peak driving into 50 ohms.
Let's hold-off judgments on fast neutron's posting.
We are investigating through experimentation and computation as opposed to acceptance of written information to determine veracity of solar generation of electricity claims.
google 'scripting languages pollute' to pick up link to china solar

It seems that fast neutron's data could be correct after all. Neutron is quoting averages whereas Payne is quoting maxima in solar capacities. Big diff.
There seems to be another common error in judging solar too... the belief that solar incidence is equal from crack of dawn to sundown, i.e., the assumption that solar power is all the same strength (power) for 12 hours of daylight. Way not true. In the low angles of sunlight in the first few hours of light in the morning and the last few in the evening produces only a mere fraction of the NAMEPLATE (maximum) capacity.