WSJournal Says "Start Stockpiling Food!" 700 Club Says "Ditch the Dollar Now!"

[jaxnative]

Guess who was the first Kamikaze of the war?

Ummm?

Gee?

Who?

An American, flying a outdated Wildcat,

OCK, I kinda doubt he left the deck that day with with the clear intention of the Kamikazi even though he turned out being very successful at it!!

[Charleston native]

Yeah, Stephen, stop being such a jerk. There is no technology to do this that is presently in existence. And even if there was it would be using the deadly poison, silicon for the PV cells. What is wrong with you anyways? And be careful, because silicon is the second most abundant element on earth, so it's everywhere, especially at the beach!!!

You do know that toxic chemicals are used to create the batteries for those solar cells? Or are you also aware of the energy expenditure that is actually used to create the PV cells from silicon, and this expenditure far outweighs the energy produced by the cells?

How much "sun-filled" land are we going to use for the solar farms? We're already complaining about the decimation of forests for suburban homes...but clearing the way for solar cells, that's better.  I think jaxnative's point about CA's plan and JEA's plan says it all.

[RiversideGator]

Yeah, Stephen, stop being such a jerk. There is no technology to do this that is presently in existence. And even if there was it would be using the deadly poison, silicon for the PV cells. What is wrong with you anyways? And be careful, because silicon is the second most abundant element on earth, so it's everywhere, especially at the beach!!!

If this is feasible, then I say great.  Let's do it.  I am no fan of burning coal.  A few questions though:
1)  How does this compare with say coal fired plants in terms of total energy generated?
2)  How do you do this in non-desert areas?
3)  How do you transport electricity long distances without losing much of it?
4)  What are the differences in cost per kilowatt hour between coal generated power and solar generated power?
5)  Why are many environmentalists opposed to using nuclear power as it produces no CO2?

[RiversideGator]

But, back to the original topic.  Commodity prices continue their slide as the dollar strengthens for the month.  Is it possible that Stephen has fallen for yet another Chicken Little imagined crisis?  Note that not all agree that commodities will come down.  Anyway, read more here:

Thanks. Things are considerably less dreadful than they appear.

Who knows, maybe next we will be looking a $3.45 / gallon gasoline!

Actually, a strong argument can be made that gas is not that expensive relative to disposable income compared with where the ratio has been historically (I cant find the article where I read this but will post it if I can find it).  Also, even over the last 25 years or so, adjusted for inflation, gas doesnt seem to be extraordinarily high.  It is high, but about the levels of the early 1980s. 



In fact, based on the chart, we may soon be entering a period of low gas prices.   

[gatorback]

I know the low gas prices theory is popular, and in fact, I even talked about this for over 3 years; however, talk to the people who are pawning their CDs and DVDs today to pay for gas, I doubt they'll substantiate low gas price theory.  Maybe what we need are more subsidies for methonal production.  How 'bout backing a farm bill that keeps fields out of production!  Write Nancy and  demand less production. 

[gatorback]

Yes, the pictures are real and ugly.  Thanks for not showing the really bad ones.   I could post pictures like this untill the co-eds come home. lol

The Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) teamed with the General Land Office GLO) and private industry to develop this commercial wind power plant, the first in Texas.  The Texas Wind Power Project, located in Culberson County in West Texas, has 112 Kenetech 33M-VS wind turbines capable of generating 35 megawatts of electricity -- enough to power 12,000 to 15,000 homes.  Since the ribbon-cutting for the Texas Wind Power Project in 1995, the Texas' Permanent School Fund earned more than $750.000 from it. The project is expected to earn more than $3 million for the PSF and create $300 million in increased economic activity over the 25-year lease period.  For additional information see this GLO web page.




   

Texas Renewable Energy Projects
   

This page presents information on notable renewable energy projects around the state, representing the major renewable energy technologies.

The following is a list of Texas State Energy Conservation Office (SECO) renewable energy projects:

    * Wind Energy
    * Solar Energy
    * Biomass Energy
    * Geothermal Energy
    * Solar for Schools
    * Renewable Energy Education
    * Energy Education Outreach
    * Energy Education Curriculum
    * Alternative Fuels
    * Pollution Mitigation

Wind Power Projects

Delaware Mountain Wind Farm      A photo of wind turbines on a mesa in West Texas.



Owner: 
   



American National Wind Power
Size:        30 MW
Location:       Culberson County, Texas
Installed:    1999

American National Wind Power is a subsidiary of National Wind Power. This wind farm is National Wind Power's (NWP) first project in Texas and is located in Culberson County, northeast of the town of Van Horn in West Texas. The ranch on which it is built is used for raising cattle and deer and is also the site of the West Texas Wind Farm Power Project, described below.  Given the right legislative environment, NWP plan  to develop it to a full potential of 250MW. The power produced by the Delaware Mountain Wind Farm is purchased by the Lower Colorado River Authority (Austin, Texas) and Reliant Energy HL&P (Houston, Texas) for distribution to their customers.

Texas Wind Power Project    
A photo of the LCRA's wind turbines in Delaware County, near Guadalupe peak.



Owner: 
   



General Land Office & Lower Colorado River Authority
Size:        35 MW
Location:       Culberson County, Texas
Installed:    1995

The Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) teamed with the General Land Office GLO) and private industry to develop this commercial wind power plant, the first in Texas.  The Texas Wind Power Project, located in Culberson County in West Texas, has 112 Kenetech 33M-VS wind turbines capable of generating 35 megawatts of electricity -- enough to power 12,000 to 15,000 homes.  Since the ribbon-cutting for the Texas Wind Power Project in 1995, the Texas' Permanent School Fund earned more than $750.000 from it. The project is expected to earn more than $3 million for the PSF and create $300 million in increased economic activity over the 25-year lease period.  For additional information see this GLO web page.

Big Spring Wind Power Project    



Owner: 
   



TXU Electric
Operator:    York Research
Size:        34 MW and 6 MW
Location:       Big Spring, Texas
Installed:    1999


The Big Spring project was conceived and implemented by TXU Electric & Gas, a subsidiary of TXU, Dallas, Tex, and York Research Corp, New York, NY. Turbines were supplied by Vestas, Lem, Denmark (US office: North Palm Springs, Calif). Projected annual generation is 117-million kWh.  This project is part of TXU's renewable energy program, called "TU Renew". Customers in the Waco, TX area can designate what percentage of their monthly electricity use is generated by wind power.

Phase I
The first phase of the project consists of 46 Vestas wind turbines: 42 V-47 models and four V-66 models. The V-66 units are the largest wind turbines in the Western Hemisphere. They stand 371 feet tall with rotor blades of 216 feet in diameter. Annual energy production of the facility will approximate 117 million Kilowatt-hours of electric energy, enough to power 7300 homes. At their highest point, the four 1650-kW turbines reach 371 ft, taller than the Statue of Liberty.

Phase 2
The second phase includes four V-66 wind turbines generating an additional 6.6 Megawatts of power, or a net of 19.7 million Kilowatt-hours annually, enough to power 1300 homes near Waco.

The farm is located between Dallas, El Paso, Del Rio, and Amarillo, where wind resources, ranging between 14.3 and 15.7 mph, fall into the desirable wind power Class 3. Construction began in July 1998, and the first 600-kW machine was commissioned on Dec 2, 1998, the last 1650-kW machine on April 22, 1999. Rich Nerzig, facility manager, commented that commissioning and startup proceeded on schedule, although some crane erection days were lost because of high winds that made lifts impractical. 


Southwest Mesa Wind Project      
Southwest Mesa Wind Project at sunset
Photo courtesy FPL Energy

Owner: 
   

West Texas Energy Partners LP,
a subsidiary of FPL Energy
Size:        75 MW
Location:       McCamey, TX
Installed:    May 1999


This project consists of 107 Multipower 48 NEG Micon WTGs.  Located 350 miles southwest of Dallas, the Southwest Mesa Wind Energy Project sits atop a 2000 feet mesa. The local communities and local landowners welcome the project and the long term business activities it provides. During the construction of the project more than 200 jobs were provided on-site and many local subcontractors were involved. The wind farm was completed in only 4 months. American Electric Power purchases the power in a response to their customer’s demand for renewables. The wind farm generates sufficient electricity to meet the demand of more than 20,000 households.

In 2001 by resolution of the Texas legislature McCamey was declared the "Wind Energy Capital of Texas"


More information on wind power in Texas:

    * Fact sheet - Wind Power Basics
    * Fact sheet - Roping the Texas Breezes
    * Wind Power Plant Chart
    * Wind Project Data Base


Solar Power Projects

Watts On Schools
A map showing the locations of the Watts On Schools solar installations.


Watts On Schools is American Electric Power's way of bringing solar power to schools in communities throughout Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana. Through Watts On Schools, AEP has installed nineteen solar energy systems totaling 76 kW at public elementary, middle, and high schools located within the service areas of three of its electric utility operating companies:

    * AEP - Central Power and Light Company
    * AEP - Southwestern Electric Power Company, and
    * AEP - West Texas Utilities Company

Each system is capable of producing enough energy each month to power a typical Texas home. Participating schools receive the energy produced by the systems for free, lowering the schools' electric bills every month. In addition, participating schools receive solar energy educational materials and conduct solar energy events on an annual basis.

[RiversideGator]

Riverside, I am stepping out of my area of familiarity, but I think I can answer several of these questions.

1)  Why does this matter?  The resource doesnt have to be mined, doesnt cause blacklung, is free and infinitely renewable.

The point is if one coal fired plant generates 10 times more energy than a solar panel field of 640 acres (paraphrasing from memory the info above) then it isnt exactly an efficient land use or practice in general.

2)  The sun is everywhere.   While the mojave is a great place to start, its not the only place  but It is a pretty big place that multiple examples of the idea could be implemented.   Its a hell of a lot better use of the desert than simply writing it off as 'the bad lands'.  The mountains and the great plains have access to cheap land and available sunlight.

So which forests in Florida would you like to clearcut to build these massive solar panel stations?  Environmentalists complain if a postage stamp piece of land in Alaska is used for oil drilling but you can cover hundreds of acres with such a monstrosity without any problems??  Talk about misplaced priorities.

3)  The Grid.  That magical grid we all hear about.   Surely it has the ability to transmit magical electrical beams across its griddiness.  It seems like we (florida) were beaming some electric waves or something out to california when their own grid started blinkering them a year or so ago.(ok I dont really know this one, and would be also very interested in knowing not only the answer to this question, but also how this mysterious but compelling "Grid" works.)

The point is you cannot transport large quantities of electricity (using current technologies) without a huge loss of said power. 

4)  This answer is totally dependent on two infinitely changing variables.   1.  How long of a period does the solar equipment last before needing replaced, since the basic resource--sunlight---is free.  The cost would be the Construction of Plant, plus O&M divided by the kilowatts produced until the equipment wears out.

Also, you have to acquire massive tracts of land and clearcut them for the solar panels.  So what is the answer to my earlier question?

5)These are some of the children of chernobyl.

Posting pictures of the victims of Chernobyl, the one nuclear power plant accident which caused such problems and which occurred in the famously incompetent Soviet Union, is totally uncalled for and unnecessary.  This is hardly representative of nuclear power today either.  Ask the French, who get almost all their power from clean nuclear power, how it is working out for them.

[gatorback]

The point is you cannot transport large quantities of electricity (using current technologies) without a huge loss of said power.

But we're doing it anyway. 

Texas Will Move Forward With Electric Deregulation;. 'Everything California Did was Wrong,' Lawmaker Says

    LCG, Jan. 15, 2001Problems with California's deregulated electricity market may be deterring efforts by other states to restructure their own power sectors, but not Texas', CBS Market Watch reported over the weekend.

    Texas state Sen. David Sibley, who wrote the legislation that will open the Texas retail electricity market to competition next January 1, said of California's power crisis "There's a lot of smart people out there, trying to do the right things, and everything they did was wrong."

    While California politicians and bureaucrats have been blaming out-of-state power producers for the high wholesale electricity prices that have driven the state's two major utilities to the door of bankruptcy, there is a growing awareness that the economic law of supply and demand has played a part.

    In 1995, Texas passed a wholesale electric deregulation law that has stimulated power plant construction, said Tom Baker, president of TXU Electric & Gas Co., the largest utility in the Lone Star State. But according to Baker "It's been difficult to site and locate plants in California, so there hasn't been any significant capacity added in the last 10 years."

    According to the Public Utility Commission of Texas, the state has added more than five times as much generating capacity as California just since 1995 and construction of nearly 14,000 megawatts of capacity has begun.

Texas kept CA from going black.  What we need is a tax!  A BTU Tax!

[gatorback]

We've been killing kids for decades...

Q. What have the studies of cancer in people living near power lines found?

A. Of children ages 14 and under, in the United States, about 14 in 100,000 develop some form of cancer each year. Almost one-third of these cases are acute lymphocytic leukemia, the most common form of leukemia in children. For childood leukemia victims, chances of survival are about 60%.

To date, 14 studies have analyzed a possible association between proximity to power lines and various types of childhood cancer. Of these, eight have reported positive associations between proximity to power lines and some form(s) of cancer. Four of the 14 studies showed a statistically significant association with leukemia.

The first study to report an association between power lines and cancer was conducted in 1979 in Denver by Dr. Nancy Wertheimer and Ed Leeper. They found that children who had died from cancer were 2 to 3 times more likely to have lived within 40 m (131 ft) of a high-current power line than were the other children studied. Exposure to magnetic fields was identified as a possible factor in this finding. Magnetic fields were not measured in the homes. Instead, the researchers devised a substitute method to estimate the magnetic fields produced by the power lines. The estimate was based on the size and number of power line wires and the distance between the power lines and the home (see p. 34).

A second Denver study in 1988, and a 1991 study in Los Angeles, also found significant associations between living near high-current power lines and childhood cancer incidence. The L.A. study found an association with leukemia but did not look at all cancers The 1988 Denver study found an association with all cancer incidence. When leukemia was analyzed separately, the risk was elevated but not statistically significant. In neither of these two studies were the associations found to be statistically significant when magnetic fields were measured in the home and used in the analysis. Studies in Sweden (1992) and Mexico (1993) have found increased leukemia incidence for children living near transmission lines. A 1993 Danish study, like the 1988 Denver study, found an association for incidence of all childhood cancers but not specifically leukemia. A Finnish study found an association with central nervous system tumors in boys. Eight studies have examined risk of cancer for adults living near power lines. Of these, two found significant studies involving cancer in people living near power lines.

Please note: you must be using NCSA Mosaic 2b3 or later or Netscape 1.1 or later to view the table below.

Summary of Residential Power-Line Cancer Studies
Study   Location   Leukemia   Other Cancers
Child Cancer Studies
Wertheimer & Leeper '79   Denver   OR = 2.35*   All Cancer OR = 2.22*
Fulton et al. '80   Rhode Island   OR = 1.09   Not Studied
Tomenius '86   Sweden   OR = 0.30   CNS Tumors OR = 3.70*
Savitz et al. '88   Denver   OR = 1.54   All Cancer OR = 1.53*
Coleman et al. '89   U.K.   OR = 1.50    Not Studied
Lin & Lu '89   Taiwan   OR = 1.31   All Cancer OR = 1.30
Myers et al. '90   U.K.   OR = I .14**    All Cancer OR = 0.98
London et al. '91   Los Angeles    OR = 2.15t   Not Studied
Lowenthal et al. '91   Australia   O/E = 2.00   .
Feychting & Ahlbom '93    Sweden    OR = 3.80*    All Cancer OR = 1.30
Olsen et al. '93   Denmark   OR = 1.50   All Cancer OR = 5.60
Petridou et al. '93   Greece   OR = I .19   Not Studied
Verkasalo '93   Finland   SIR = 1.60   All Cancer SIR = 1.50,
.   .   .   CNS Tumors in Boys, SIR = 4.20*
Fajardo-Gutierrez et al. '93   Mexico   OR = 2.63*   Not Studied
Adult Cancer Studies
Wertheimer & Leeper �82   Denver   OR = 1.00   All Cancer OR = 1.28*
McDowall �86   U.K.   SMR = 143   Lung Cancer SMR = 215*
Severson et al �88   Seattle   OR = 0.80   Not Studied
Coleman et al. �89   U.K.   OR = 0.90    Not Studied
Youngson et al. �91   U.K.   Leukemia & Lymphoma OR = 1.29
Eriksson & Karlsson �92   Sweden   Not Studied   Multiple Myeloma OR = 0.94
Feychting & Ahlbom �92   Sweden   OR = 1.00   (Leukemia Subtypes OR = 1.70)
Schreiber et al. �93   The Netherlands   No Cases   All Cancer SMR = 85,
.   .   .   Hodgkins Disease SMR=469
Notes: This table is intended to summarize briefly some of the selected, often-cited results of the residential cancer studies. Consult the full papers for details (see References, p. 56).

OR = Odds Ratio. An OR of 1.00 means no increased or decreased risk.
SMR = Standardized Mortality Ratio. An SMR of 100 means no increased or decreased risk.
SIR = Standardized Incidence Ratio. An SIR of 1.00 means no increased or decreased risk.
CNS = Central nervous system.
O/E = Observed number of cases divided by the expected number of cases.
* The number is statistically significant (greater than expected by chance), p. 11.
** For nonsolid tumors, which includes leukemia and lymphomas.

Although often characterized this way, these diverse studies can't simply be "added up" to determine weight of evidence or to reach a conclusion about health effects because many types of studies are included in these lists. Also, many studies that reported no statistically significant elevations in risk did report elevated risks (above 1.00). The risks in some cases may not be reported as "significant" because of small sample sizes. For studies included as significant, some found only one or a few significant risks out of several that had been calculated. When many risks are calculated, some can be "significant" due to chance. It is also worth noting that studies which report positive associations tend to receive more publicity than do studies which find no association

[Midway ®]

But, back to the original topic.  Commodity prices continue their slide as the dollar strengthens for the month.  Is it possible that Stephen has fallen for yet another Chicken Little imagined crisis?  Note that not all agree that commodities will come down.  Anyway, read more here:

Thanks. Things are considerably less dreadful than they appear.

Who knows, maybe next we will be looking a $3.45 / gallon gasoline!

Actually, a strong argument can be made that gas is not that expensive relative to disposable income compared with where the ratio has been historically (I cant find the article where I read this but will post it if I can find it).  Also, even over the last 25 years or so, adjusted for inflation, gas doesnt seem to be extraordinarily high.  It is high, but about the levels of the early 1980s. 



In fact, based on the chart, we may soon be entering a period of low gas prices.   

Interesting chart.  Thanks for digging it up. 270% increase in the price of gasoline since January 20, 2001. While the official annual rate of inflation was 5-6%. Thanks, GWB.

You can spin the numbers any way you want. Gas is still 3.80/gallon, but on the other hand it IS cheaper than milk. I have heard that DARPA is working on milk powered cars.

[Midway ®]

The point is if one coal fired plant generates 10 times more energy than a solar panel field of 640 acres (paraphrasing from memory the info above) then it isnt exactly an efficient land use or practice in general.

A coal fired power plant (or any power plant for that matter) does not create energy, it converts from another energy source to electricity. if you are going to consider the spatial efficiency of a power plant, then you should also include the infrastructure needed to obtain the fuel for that plant. But, Kwh/Sq.ft would be a meaningless rating for a power plant so there are no specs on that. The closest you can come to that is watts per sq ft for a PV cell. And besides, there's plenty of land thats not good for anything else out west. I don't think Stephen was saying that there should be solar farms everywhere, just where they make economic sense. The extension to everywhere was your contribution. In a country this big, the spatial efficiency of a power plant is a meaningless number.

By the way, the thermodynamic efficiency of a coal fired power plant is about 39%. The rest is waste heat. So about 60% of the coal burned produces no electricity, just pollution and waste heat.

So which forests in Florida would you like to clearcut to build these massive solar panel stations?  Environmentalists complain if a postage stamp piece of land in Alaska is used for oil drilling but you can cover hundreds of acres with such a monstrosity without any problems??  Talk about misplaced priorities.

Once the phosphate runs out, put them over those strip mines. How about in the California, Arizona and Utah deserts? And to compare oil drilling with the placement of PV cells is foolishness and you know it. They are two totally different kinds of activities. Oil drilling is an active endeavour in a delicate ecosystem, and placing PV cells is a passive activity in a desert.

The point is you cannot transport large quantities of electricity (using current technologies) without a huge loss of said power. 

Oh, really? You know those big tower looking thingys with the wires on them? Those are called electric transmission lines. In this modern age they have actually figured out how to make them work with about a 96% efficiency!

Also, you have to acquire massive tracts of land and clearcut them for the solar panels.  So what is the answer to my earlier question?

Solar electric farms are not appropriate everywhere, but you are trying to make the case that they are not appropriate anywhere.

Posting pictures of the victims of Chernobyl, the one nuclear power plant accident which caused such problems and which occurred in the famously incompetent Soviet Union, is totally uncalled for and unnecessary.  This is hardly representative of nuclear power today either.  Ask the French, who get almost all their power from clean nuclear power, how it is working out for them.

Yes nuclear power is wonderful, and it is a mature and reasonably safe technology. Just one small problem.... nobody knows what to do with the waste plutonium that the fissile reactors produce. It has a half life of 24,000 years. Thats a long time to store something safely. Look up Yucca mountain.  I am all for nuclear power, if you can devise a strategy for disposing of the spent fuel. Could you please work on that, because to date, no one else has been able to crack that nut, and being that you are so smart, I'm sure that you could figure this out during your lunch break, probably with the mere wave of your hand, just like everything else.

Sorry, your black/white views work even less well in the area of technology. Technology is a constant compromise between the desired result and the immutable realities of physics. So, if you are not able or willing to make constant compromises, you'd better keep your day job.

And sorry, Jaxnative, theres no batteries in a solar farm. and as for fuel efficiency, if you think about if for 1 second, even if coal cost 5 cents per ton, solar would still be cheaper, because the sunlight is free. And if you think that a coal fired plant costs less to build or maintain than a solar plant, you'd be totally wrong there as well.

[Lunican]

Actually, a strong argument can be made that gas is not that expensive relative to disposable income compared with where the ratio has been historically (I cant find the article where I read this but will post it if I can find it).  Also, even over the last 25 years or so, adjusted for inflation, gas doesnt seem to be extraordinarily high.  It is high, but about the levels of the early 1980s.

Gas was not $3.70 per gallon nor was there a recession when that article was written so the equation has changed.

[Midway ®]

Actually, a strong argument can be made that gas is not that expensive relative to disposable income compared with where the ratio has been historically (I cant find the article where I read this but will post it if I can find it).  Also, even over the last 25 years or so, adjusted for inflation, gas doesnt seem to be extraordinarily high.  It is high, but about the levels of the early 1980s.

Gas was not $3.70 per gallon nor was there a recession when that article was written so the equation has changed.

Translation: The article's basic premise is wrong.

[RiversideGator]

Actually, a strong argument can be made that gas is not that expensive relative to disposable income compared with where the ratio has been historically (I cant find the article where I read this but will post it if I can find it).  Also, even over the last 25 years or so, adjusted for inflation, gas doesnt seem to be extraordinarily high.  It is high, but about the levels of the early 1980s.

Gas was not $3.70 per gallon nor was there a recession when that article was written so the equation has changed.

Unfortunately, we arent in recession now either (at least in the 1st quarter of 2008).  We are in a very slow growth period but a recession is 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.  Here is the chart:

[RiversideGator]

Actually, a strong argument can be made that gas is not that expensive relative to disposable income compared with where the ratio has been historically (I cant find the article where I read this but will post it if I can find it).  Also, even over the last 25 years or so, adjusted for inflation, gas doesnt seem to be extraordinarily high.  It is high, but about the levels of the early 1980s.

Gas was not $3.70 per gallon nor was there a recession when that article was written so the equation has changed.

Translation: The article's basic premise is wrong.

And so is yours.