People are looking at the wrong solar energy. Solar panels make more sense for backup. You can recover your money but only after 15 - 20 years. I have a 1 kW system and my payback is 16 years If I would live in California the payback would be 8 years because the energy is double there. If you look at the devaluing of the dollar in 4 years with the money that you built your solar system, you may be able to buy only half of that system but the price of energy might double or triple. What makes sense is:
1. Solar air heat panels.(For existing homes) This panel is my second version. The first one I have built 4 years ago and was so god that I had to build the 2nd one. The cost is $250.00. A panel like this made professional is $2700.00 http://www.cansolair.com/products/canso ... al-gallery
The air in the middle of the day comes at 160 F and is pushed through the panel by a 250 CFM inline fan.
Solar electric panels give you back max 16% of the solar energy, and from that you lose easily another 20-30% with the inverters. Solar air panels give you back almost 100% of the solar energy that hits them.
There is almost 1kW/m2( aprox 9 sq ft) of solar energy. A small space heater uses 1 kWh of energy. My panel has 3.6 m2 of surface. That translates to aprox. 3kWh of free energy. every hour when the sun is up in the sky. Solar electric panels just can't compete with Air Panels.
I calculated that my furnace uses 1.4kWh of electricity for the 2 motors for every THERM OF GAS USED. So while you heat your house with solar energy you save electricity too.
2. Passive solar homes. This should be No1, but majority of the people have no clue how the sun moves in the sky. If you want to see how your house is positioned look here: suncalc.net To take advantage of the solar energy most of the windows should positioned towards the south.
Caption: Solar energy installation on the atoll of Nukunonu in Tokelau. Credit: PowerSmart
BRISBANE, Oct 26 2012 (IPS) - Tokelau, a small Polynesian territory in the central Pacific, has surpassed the rest of the world in replacing fossil fuels and raised the benchmark of achievement on sustainable development.
Located north of Samoa, the three atolls, home to 1,411 people, will claim a world record when they switch to 150 percent renewable energy – sourced primarily from solar power – next week.
“Our commitment as global citizens is to make a positive contribution towards the mitigation of the impacts of climate change,” Jovilisi Suveinakama, general manager of the National Public Service of the Government of Tokelau, in Apia, Samoa, told IPS.
“We are proud of this achievement. We congratulate and encourage other countries in the Pacific (to take) the same path.”
Atafu, Nukunonu and Fakaofo atolls, which are administered by New Zealand, are three to five metres above sea level and comprise a total land area of 12 square kilometres.
The territory’s energy requirements for electricity, domestic use and transportation have hitherto been met by imported fossil fuels, costing the tiny country roughly 819,500 dollars per year.
In 2004 the Government of Tokelau developed a national policy and strategy to increase energy efficiency and independence with a focus on the renewable sector. (...)
Well, the latest is a pretty serious study about infrasound (low frequency) waves from wind turbines making people sick.
On the surface this sounds like more NIMBY reaction. Low frequencies do travel, but the power associated with them dissipates quickly with distance. If you had sufficient power to cause health issues at any distance, you would have enough power to do physical damage to the immediate surrounding infrastructure.
The noise output from a modern wind turbine contains energy spread across the audible frequency range and, like most sounds in the environment, has some (inaudible) energy in the infrasound range. Early wind turbines installed in the USA in the 1980s, however, were designed with the blades located downwind of the turbine tower such that the wind had to travel past the tower before it struck the blades. This caused the sound output from this type of turbine to generate a strong low frequency pulse, which also had significant levels of energy in the infrasound range. Largely as a consequence of this, wind turbine design was subsequently changed such that the blades were moved upwind of the tower. Coupled with this, the stand-off distance between the blades and the tower was increased in order to minimise any residual possibility that the blades may interact with disturbed air flow upwind of the tower. The consequence of these developments was to dramatically reduce tower interaction effects, and the generation of high levels of low frequency noise by wind turbines.
Noise from modern wind turbines is normally clearly audible on a wind farm site and a listener may readily perceive that the sound does not contain any of the strong low frequency pulsing described above, although the sound does change slightly close to an individual wind turbine as the blades pass through the air and change their distance from the listener. As the listener moves away from the site, the noise level decreases due to the increasing distance.
The noise character is also likely to change due to air absorption, which increases with increasing frequency, meaning that although the energy across the frequency range is reduced, higher frequencies are reduced more than lower frequencies. This effect may also be observed with road traffic noise or natural sources, such as the sea, where higher frequency components are diminished relative to lower frequency components at long distances. Wind turbines are not, therefore, a significant source of low frequency or infrasonic noise but, as with noise from any other sound source, the high frequency components are reduced when heard from a distance and overall levels are very low.
Conclusion
With regard to effects of noise from wind turbines, the main effect depends on the listener's reaction to what they may hear. There are no direct health effects from noise at the level of noise generated by wind turbines. It has been repeatedly shown by measurements of wind turbine noise undertaken in the UK, Denmark, Germany and the USA over the past decade, and accepted by experienced noise professionals, that the levels of infrasonic noise and vibration radiated from modern, upwind configuration wind turbines are at a very low level; so low that they lie below the threshold of perception, even for those people who are particularly sensitive to such noise, and even on an actual wind turbine site.
In response to concerns that wind turbines emit infrasound and cause associated health problems, Dr Geoff Leventhall, Consultant in Noise Vibration and Acoustics and author of the Defra Report on Low Frequency Noise and its Effects, says:
"I can state quite categorically that there is no significant infrasound from current designs of wind turbines."
Notes
Prepared with assistance from: Jeremy Bass - Renewable Energy Systems Group Andrew Bullmore - Hoare Lea Acoustics Malcolm Hayes - Hayes McKenzie Partnership Ltd Mark Jiggins - npower renewables Geoff Leventhall - Consultant in Noise Vibration and Acoustics Andy McKenzie - Hayes McKenzie Partnership Ltd Marcus Trinick - Bond Pearce
There are several studies out there that indicate that very low frequencies are not anything significant to worry about. A couple of studies indicate that noise in the 50-150 range is a bigger issue, and we are surrounded by things that produce those frequencies.
You know what I see when I look at that photo? A crappy fence with weeds, mostly, then in the background some houses on what looks like lots & streets carved out of a deciduous forest in weird straight swaths, then waaay in the back, some windmills. Humans' impact on that landscape has been ongoing and unsightly for quite some time. I'm not saying "it's ruined, might as well put in a hog farm and walmart," I'm just saying it's an odd time to get indignant.
Location: close to the edge Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
Nov 30, 2011 - 11:01am
ScottFromWyoming wrote:
You know what I see when I look at that photo? A crappy fence with weeds, mostly, then in the background some houses on what looks like lots & streets carved out of a deciduous forest in weird straight swaths, then waaay in the back, some windmills. Humans' impact on that landscape has been ongoing and unsightly for quite some time. I'm not saying "it's ruined, might as well put in a hog farm and walmart," I'm just saying it's an odd time to get indignant.
Which is a big part of my counterargument... I mean, if we tolerate the visual blight that is power lines, what's the grief about these rather elegant and majestic wind turbines?
195 turbines in upstate NY. Locals feel like it has destroyed their beautiful heritage.
You know what I see when I look at that photo? A crappy fence with weeds, mostly, then in the background some houses on what looks like lots & streets carved out of a deciduous forest in weird straight swaths, then waaay in the back, some windmills. Humans' impact on that landscape has been ongoing and unsightly for quite some time. I'm not saying "it's ruined, might as well put in a hog farm and walmart," I'm just saying it's an odd time to get indignant.
Location: close to the edge Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
Nov 30, 2011 - 9:56am
180°(or so) panorama view. Click for large. Close up of met tower. Click for large. That hill kinda in the middle is Kidder Mountain. In the large version you can just barely see the meteorological tower which has been collecting data for the pending Wind Farm. Most of the towers (up to 11) will go on that hill. 2-3 towers will go to the right of this photo.
The tower is 185' tall... the towers will be about 400' from base to blade tip.
There is a Hawk Watch that takes place during every migration... the raptor migration path is right along this ridge. They count from a viewing station that is about 8 miles due north of this spot.
The record? 3,417 raptors counted in one day (Sept '10). There were 14,000 raptors counted in October alone this year. They reported a "kettle" of about 1,000 raptors (mostly Broad Wing Hawks). What a site that must have been!
hippiechick
Did you ever grow anything in the garden of your mind?
Location: topsy turvy land Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
hippiechick
Did you ever grow anything in the garden of your mind?
Location: topsy turvy land Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
Nov 29, 2011 - 7:46am
islander wrote:
This is not directed at you, but I sort of like them - I like driving into Palm Springs too because of all the turbines. We are an energy intensive society. This is something we can do to lessen the impact of our demands. No it's not zero impact, but it beats this:
Used to be, when we drove from Cleve to Chi, we would drive through the giant smoke cloud that was Gary, IN. I would much rather see the wind turbines, which I think are beautiful in their own way, than have to deal with dirty air.
The first 20% was easy. The next 20% a lot harder, the last 10% was really tough. Now I'm looking at co-generation, some demand control stuff, a few new (and spendy) windows.
Insulation and light bulb changes, were quick and easy and made a big impact. The ROI on those can be just a few months if you do it before winter (or maybe summer if you use Air Conditioning a lot).
195 turbines in upstate NY. Locals feel like it has destroyed their beautiful heritage.
This is not directed at you, but I sort of like them - I like driving into Palm Springs too because of all the turbines. We are an energy intensive society. This is something we can do to lessen the impact of our demands. No it's not zero impact, but it beats this:
Location: close to the edge Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
Nov 29, 2011 - 7:38am
islander wrote:
And any time we do, we get a bunch of people complaining about the inconvenience, effort or cost associated. My PUD has a cool thing on the bottom of our bill, it shows your month by month energy usage for the year, and your last year vs. this year energy usage along with the cooling degree day information. It lets you know how you are trending and if your usage is going up or down. I've cut the energy usage of this house by about half in the 9 years we've been here. I'm still able to show year over year gains for the most part, but it's getting harder. My next couple of steps are going to be much more expensive, but I expect them to have a reasonable ROI.
wow!!
hippiechick
Did you ever grow anything in the garden of your mind?
Location: topsy turvy land Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
Nov 29, 2011 - 7:34am
rosedraws wrote:
195 turbines in upstate NY. Locals feel like it has destroyed their beautiful heritage.
It's unrealistic to think that their lives will never change.
This has actually been my tack lately. It would be much easier to reduce 10MW of usage than to build 5 wind turbines. Or at least, why aren't we talking about capping usage? Are we just going to have to keep building more energy-producing structures until there's no surfaces left?
The counter argument is, "I believe we are innovative enough to come up with an energy solution". And while I agree with that, we're nowhere near that yet, so lets be energy frugal in the meanwhile.
It really wouldn't take much to cut our national/regional energy consumption by 10%. There is just no imperative to do so.
And any time we do, we get a bunch of people complaining about the inconvenience, effort or cost associated. My PUD has a cool thing on the bottom of our bill, it shows your month by month energy usage for the year, and your last year vs. this year energy usage along with the cooling degree day information. It lets you know how you are trending and if your usage is going up or down. I've cut the energy usage of this house by about half in the 9 years we've been here. I'm still able to show year over year gains for the most part, but it's getting harder. My next couple of steps are going to be much more expensive, but I expect them to have a reasonable ROI.
